Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00781/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00781-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment (Insurance)

---

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

Phillips & Associates, P.C., an Arizona

corporation; Phillips & Associates, an

Arizona corporation; and Pacific Law

Center, a California corporation, 

Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants, 

vs.

Navigators Insurance Company, a New

York corporation, 

Defendant/Counterclaimant.

_________________________________

Navigators Insurance Company, 

Third-Party Plaintiff,

vs.

Robert F. Clarke; Jeffrey L. Phillips; and

Robert Arentz,

Third-Party Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-781-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that insurance policies issued by Defendant

provide coverage for legal malpractice claims asserted against Plaintiffs and Third-Party

Defendant Robert Clark (the “Insureds”) in California state court. Doc. 1-1 at 3-13.

The Insureds filed motions for leave to amend their pleadings to add a bad faith claim. Docs.

38, 39. On November 22, 2010, the Court issued an order denying the motions to amend.

Doc. 50. The Insureds have filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Doc. 54.

Case 2:10-cv-00781-DGC Document 56 Filed 12/09/10 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 -

Motions for reconsideration “are ‘disfavored’ and will be granted only upon a

showing of ‘manifest error’ or ‘new facts or legal authority that could not have been raised

earlier with reasonable diligence.’” In re Rosson, 545 F.3d 764, 769 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation

and brackets omitted); see S.E.C. v. Kuipers, No. 09-36016, 2010 WL 3735788, at *3 (9th

Cir. Sept. 21, 2010); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). The Insureds do not meet (or even address) this high

standard. They cite no new law or fact that occurred after the Court’s decision. Instead, they

re-urge arguments made in their motions to amend, assert new arguments that could have

been made in those motions, and ask the Court to rethink its analysis. In short, the Insureds

simply disagree with the order denying leave to amend. But “[m]ere disagreement with a

previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.” Guillen v. Thompson, No. CV

08-1279-PHX-MHM, 2010 WL 3239419, at *2 (D. Ariz. Aug. 16, 2010).

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs and ThirdParty Defendants (Doc. 54) is denied.

DATED this 9th day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00781-DGC Document 56 Filed 12/09/10 Page 2 of 2