Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02005/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-02005-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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

1

 The Court notes that the plaintiff's motion was filed some six weeks after the

Court entered its order resolving the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and six

business days prior to the due date for the parties' Joint Pretrial Statement.

- 1 -

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Scott Kenton, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV-04-2005-PCT-PGR

)

vs. )

) ORDER

Linda Foster, )

)

Defendant. ) )

Pending before the Court is the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of

Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 26, 2006 (doc. #47),

wherein the plaintiff seeks to have the Court reverse that portion of its order

entered on September 14, 2006 (doc. #44) that denied the plaintiff's request for

entry of summary judgment on his claim. Having considered the motion, the

Court finds that it should be summarily denied.1

Although the Court has the authority to consider the plaintiff's motion given

Case 3:04-cv-02005-PGR Document 48 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

 The Court notes that the title company's receipt for $50,000 presented by the

plaintiff as an exhibit to his motion is unauthenticated and is one that obviously could

have been presented to the Court prior to the disposition of the plaintiff's summary

judgment motion.

3

 The quitclaim deeds submitted by the plaintiff, which obviously were

available to the plaintiff prior to the disposition of his summary judgment motion, do not

resolve the issue of who currently owns the property at issue and thus specific

performance cannot be granted as a matter of law even if the Court were to conclude

that the defendant breached the parties' real estate sales contract. 

 Even if the Court were to accept the plaintiff's argument that the defendant

still has an ownership interest in the property because the quitclaim deeds, rather than

conveying any interest owned by the defendant, purport to convey Mr. Van Pelt's

- 2 -

that an order denying summary judgment is an interlocutory order that is subject

to reconsideration by the Court prior to its entry of final judgment, a motion for

reconsideration serves a very limited function - to show that the Court clearly

erred by overlooking material facts or controlling law presented to it, or to show

that there has been an intervening controlling decision or that there is newly

discovered material evidence not previously available. Nothing the plaintiff

presents in his motion persuades the Court that it should reverse its prior order

and enter summary judgment for him on his request for specific performance.

First, the plaintiff still has not offered any explanation for the differing

versions of the escrow instructions he presented to the Court as being the parties'

real estate sales contract, and the Court still cannot determine as a matter of law

from the record before it what the parties mutually agreed were the material and

essential terms of their contract.2

 

Second, the plaintiff still has not submitted any affirmative evidence

establishing that the plaintiff currently owns the property at issue, which is

essential to show the propriety of specific performance.3

Case 3:04-cv-02005-PGR Document 48 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 3
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

interest in the property to Mr. Huntley and then back to Mr. Van Pelt, which the Court

notes that it cannot accept as a matter of law given the inconsistencies on the face of

the 2004 quitclaim deed, that merely raises the issue of whether Mr. Van Pelt is

currently a co-owner of the property with the defendant.

- 3 -

Both of these issues will have to be resolved by the trier of fact.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Ruling on

Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. #47) is denied.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2006.

Case 3:04-cv-02005-PGR Document 48 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 3