Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00351/USCOURTS-azd-4_05-cv-00351-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other 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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nomo Agroindustrial SA DE CV, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Enza Zaden North America, Inc., et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-351-TUC-FRZ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant Enza's motion to reconsider the Court's Order

addressing the motions for summary judgment. Defendant's motion is simply a rehash of the

arguments already considered and rejected by the Court. Plaintiff was not required to

respond. See LRCiv 7.2(g). 

I. Discussion

A motion to reconsider must provide a valid ground for reconsideration by

showing two things. First, it must demonstrate some valid reason why the Court

should reconsider its prior decision. Second, it must set forth facts or law of a strongly

convincing nature to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision.

Courts have advanced three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an

intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and

(3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

Bahrs v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 795 F. Supp. 965, 967 (D. Ariz. 1992); see also Defenders of

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995)(a motion for reconsideration

should not be used to ask a court to "rethink what the court had already thought throughCase 4:05-cv-00351-FRZ Document 144 Filed 04/09/07 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

1

As summary judgment has been denied, this case is going to trial absent a settlement.

As the motion in limine deadline is now looming, the Court cautions the parties that motions

in limine are meant to deal with discrete evidentiary issues related to trial, and are not another

excuse to file dispositive motions disguised as motions in limine.

- 2 -

rightly or wrongly."); Refrigeration Sales Co. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605 F.Supp. 6, 7

(N.D.Ill. 1983)(arguments that a court was in error on the issues it considered should be

directed to the court of appeals).

Having reviewed the motion to reconsider and the record in this case, the Court finds no

basis to depart from its original decision. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) Defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied.

1

DATED this 9th day of April, 2007.

Case 4:05-cv-00351-FRZ Document 144 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 2