Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-02684/USCOURTS-azd-2_23-cv-02684-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

Oliver Complot, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Absolute Resolutions Investments LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-23-02684-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration 

(Doc. 31). Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court’s June 13, 2024, Order dismissing 

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 30). Therein, the Court found that 

res judicata precluded the FAC’s claims and denied Plaintiffs’ request to amend. (Id.)

Plaintiffs argue the Court’s decision was error because the alleged misrepresentations in 

the FAC arose after dismissal of the earlier suit and thus could not be subject to res 

judicata. (Doc. 31 at 1). 

The Court will deny the Motion for Reconsideration. 

I. Background

Though detailed in its June Order, the Court briefly restates the facts relevant to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration here. 

The State Collection Action. On April 14, 2023, Absolute Resolutions 

Investments LLC (“ARI”), a debt collector company, filed suit against Plaintiffs in 

Maricopa County Superior Court for the collection of a $64,296.38 household private 

Case 2:23-cv-02684-DJH Document 32 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 5
- 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

student loan (“State Collection Action”). (See Complaint, Absolute Resolutions 

Investments, LLC v. Tolamaa et al, CV 2023-005777 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct. April 

14, 2023) at Doc. 16 at 57–60). Therein, ARI alleged that Plaintiffs defaulted on the

student loan and sought payment of the principal, interest, court costs, and other relief as 

the court may deem just and equitable. (Id.) The State Collection Action remains pending 

before Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky.

Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit. On September 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit 

against ARI, Johnson Mark LLC, Rhett Flaming-Buschman, Johnathan D. Anderson, 

Butch Johnson, Wade Price, Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky, the State of Arizona, 

and other court officers involved in the State Collection Action (“Federal Lawsuit”). 

Complot v. Absolute Resolution Investments LLC et al, No. 2:23-cv-01945-DWL (D. 

Ariz. Sept. 18, 2023). Plaintiff Complot alleged in the Federal Lawsuit that ARI and its 

counsel “failed to provide any verifiable admissible evidence” to support its claim in the 

State Collection Action and thus committed “abuse of process and mov[ed] a fraudulent 

claim upon the court.” Federal Lawsuit, ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff Complot further stated

that Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky “ignored and failed to acknowledge [his] 

request” to discipline AR[I] and its counsel[.]” Id. The first Federal Lawsuit was based on 

Plaintiff Complot’s claims for “obstruction of Justice 18 U.S.C. § 1503, due process and 

fairness violations, misfeasance, malfeasance, negligence, attorney and judge 

misconduct, abuse of process, 18 U.S.C.[§] 242 and a whole host of other violations.” Id. 

at 3. For relief, Plaintiff Complot sought “disbarment of all the attorneys employed by 

Johnson Mark LLC,” “compensatory damages from [ARI] in the amount of $2,500,000 

million dollars [sic] along with punitive damages,” “compensation from the State of 

Arizona in the amount of $2,000,000 million dollars [sic] for its negligence in placing 

[Judge] Astrowsky in office,” and “disciplinary action against [Judge Astrowsky] and 

every officer involved in the case CV20235777.” Id. at 4. On October 13, 2023, United 

States District Judge Dominic W. Lanza sua sponte dismissed the Federal Lawsuit 

without leave to amend. See generally Federal Lawsuit, ECF No. 10. Plaintiff initiated 

Case 2:23-cv-02684-DJH Document 32 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 5
- 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

27

28

the present action five days later. (See Doc. 1-2).

Plaintiff’s Second Lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ second lawsuit, filed on October 17, 2023, 

was initiated in Maricopa County Superior Court against Defendants ARI, Johnson Mark 

LLC, Rhett Flaming-Buschman, Johnathan D. Anderson, Butch Johnson, and Wade 

Price, and subsequently removed to this Court.1(Doc. 1). In their FAC, Plaintiffs allege 

that Defendants tendered false and misleading forms—including requests for admission, 

a disclosure statement, chain of title documents, a billing statements, and a “ChargeOffs 

Placement” file—to them during the State Collection Action. (See id. at ¶¶ 4, 10, 11–14, 

52–56, 84–87, 116–21, 156–74). They allege that they relied on these false and/or 

misleading forms “to make informed decisions and decide how to make proper defense.” 

(Id. at ¶¶ 29, 68, 99, 133, 186). They also alleged that Defendants presented the 

documents “in a manner which intended to cause the [Plaintiffs] to make poor decisions” 

when defending against the State Collection Action. (Id. at ¶¶ 15, 29, 36, 43, 68, 99, 133, 

186). (Doc. 30 at 5). Plaintiffs’ position, among others, is that ARI, the Individual 

Defendants, and Defendant Johnson Mark LLC negligently produced documents 

containing fraudulent, incorrect, or incomplete information as “oppressive tactics” during 

the course of litigation to mislead and “prevent Plaintiffs from obtaining correct material” 

to support their claims.

Defendant ARI moved to dismiss the FAC, contending the claims were barred by 

res judicata and that the FAC failed to plead any plausible claim for relief. (Doc. 18). 

The Court agreed that the claims were precluded by res judicata. It did not assess 

whether the FAC stated plausible claims for relief. (Doc. 30). The Court then dismissed 

the FAC without leave to amend. (Id.)

On June 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 31). 

The Court did not order a response and thus none was filed. See L.R.Civ. 7.2(g)(2) (“No 

response to a motion for reconsideration . . . may be filed unless ordered by the Court[.]”)

1 Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Absolute Resolutions Corporation, ARC Holdings, 

LLC, Arcon Credit Solutions, LLC, Christopher Winkle, and Robert Johnson from the 

second lawsuit. 

Case 2:23-cv-02684-DJH Document 32 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

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

II. Discussion

Motions for Reconsideration are to be granted only in rare circumstances, and the 

Court “will ordinarily deny” such a motion. L.R. Civ. 7.2(g)(1); Defenders of Wildlife v. 

Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Motions for reconsideration should 

not be used to ask a court to “‘rethink what the court had already thought through—

rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, 

Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). 

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust, (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1 J, 

Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In addition to 

complying with LR Civ. 7.2(g)(1), a party moving for reconsideration must take into 

account the narrow scope of such a motion. “[D]issatisfaction or disagreement is not a 

proper basis for reconsideration [.]” Ellsworth v. Prison Health Services Inc., 2013 WL 

1149937, at *2 (D. Ariz. March 20, 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). 

Without specifying, Plaintiffs say that “[t]he Court unfortunately failed to properly 

consider material facts that were presented to the Court before the Court’s decision.” 

(Doc. 31 at 1). Plaintiffs say they received “a package of documents” after their Federal 

Lawsuit was dismissed in October 2023, and the alleged misrepresentations in those 

documents are the bases for “a new cause of action that could not be pleaded or barred by 

res judicata.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiffs state they “made mention of these new documents and 

the fact that new wrongs defeat res judicata and the court should have given them more 

weight in its decision to ensure complete justice.” (Id.)

In their Response to ARI’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff made the same argument. 

Specifically, they argued that their receipt of additional forms, exchanged as part of 

discovery in this action, “constitutes a new event and set of facts that could not have been 

pleaded or raised in a prior action” and so “it seems impossible for the [FAC] to . . . arise 

Case 2:23-cv-02684-DJH Document 32 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 5
- 5 -

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

from the same transactional nucleus of facts” as the Federal Lawsuit. (Doc. 20 at 2–3). 

The Court rejected this position as “misguided,” and explained that “the allegations 

underlying [the] present action [are] about the forms exchanged during litigation in the 

State Collection Action. The crux of the present action is not about forms exchanged 

during ongoing litigation.” (Doc. 30 at n.13). Nothing in the Ninth Circuit case law cited 

by Plaintiffs, which is neither new nor intervening, suggests that this finding was clear 

error. 

Because Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden for the Court to grant a Motion 

for Reconsideration, it is denied. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 31). 

Dated this 4th day of December, 2024.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:23-cv-02684-DJH Document 32 Filed 12/05/24 Page 5 of 5