Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00073/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00073-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Conversion

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steve Hillis and Diane Hillis, husband

and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Ronald E. Heineman and Barbara L.

Heineman, husband and wife; Barbara L.

Heineman, Trustee of the Year 2002

Revocable Trust Dated August 16, 2002;

and Gregory Bartko, 

Defendants. _________________________________

Ronald E. Heineman and Barbara L.

Heineman, husband and wife; and

Gregory Bartko,

Counter-Plaintiffs and

Third-Party Plaintiffs,

vs.

Steve Hillis and Diane Hillis, husband

and wife; and John Raymond Fox,

Counter-Defendants and

Third-Party Defendant. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-0073-PHX-DGC

ORDER

On July 23, 2009, the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint without

prejudice. Dkt. #85. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of that order pursuant

to Rule 7.2(g) of the Court’s Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #87. Plaintiffs also have

Case 2:09-cv-00073-DGC Document 91 Filed 08/18/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

filed a motion to amend findings of fact and for a new trial pursuant to Rules 52 and 59 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #88. The Court made no findings of fact in the

order of dismissal, and no trial has occurred in this case. The Court will therefore deny

Plaintiffs’ motion to amend findings and for a new trial.

Defendants have filed a motion for extension of time to respond to Plaintiffs’ motions.

Dkt. #89. The motion is moot with respect to Plaintiffs’ motion to amend findings and for

a new trial. The Court concludes that no response is necessary with respect to the motion for

reconsideration. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) (no response to a motion for reconsideration may be

filed absent leave of court). Defendants’ motion for extension of time will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to amend findings and for a new trial (Dkt. #88) is denied.

2. Defendants’ motion for extension of time (Dkt. #89) is denied.

3. Defendants shall not file a response to the motion for reconsideration.

DATED this 18th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00073-DGC Document 91 Filed 08/18/09 Page 2 of 2