Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-03182/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-03182-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

Christina M Madsen,

Plaintiff,

v. 

City of Phoenix, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-03182-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Christina Madsen’s(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Reconsider 

and Vacate the Court’s Order Granting the City of Phoenix’s Motion for a New Trial 

(Second Motion to Reconsider) (Doc. 386). For the reasons detailed below, the Motion is 

denied.

BACKGROUND

This case concerns Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim against the City of 

Phoenix (“Defendant”). In April 2022, this Court held a four-day jury trial. The jury 

rendered a verdict for the Plaintiff. After trial, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for 

Judgment as a Matter of Law and granted its subsequent Motion for a New Trial. (Doc. 

340). On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff moved for this Court to reconsider its order for a new 

trial. On August 16, 2023, the Court denied that motion.

The second trial commenced on October 24, 2023. On November 1, 2023, the Court 

declared a mistrial resulting from the jury’s inability to come to a unanimous decision. 

Facing a third trial, Plaintiff has moved a second time for the Court to reconsider its earlier 

Case 2:19-cv-03182-GMS Document 401 Filed 12/01/23 Page 1 of 3
- 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

order for a new trial.

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

Under Local Rule 7.2(g), a motion for reconsideration should ordinarily be denied 

“absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could 

not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” L.R. Civ. 7.2(g); 

see also School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 

(9th Cir. 1993) (holding that granting a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where 

“the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change 

in controlling law”). Moreover, “[n]o motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat 

any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the 

motion that resulted in the Order.” L.R. Civ. 7.2(g)(1). Thus, “[m]ere disagreement with 

a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.” Adame v. City of Surprise, 

No. CV-17-03200, 2018 WL 3496955, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 20, 2018).

II. Motion to Reconsider New Trial Order

Plaintiff’s Motion is denied because it neither demonstrates manifest error nor 

shows relevant new facts or legal authority not available at the first trial. Plaintiff argues 

that new law, Sharp v. S&S Activewear, L.L.C., 69 F.4th 974 (9th Cir. 2023), fundamentally 

changes the Court’s analysis in its order for a new trial. Plaintiff’s reliance on Sharp is 

misplaced. Sharp involved whether offensive conduct when directed toward both men and 

women constitutes sexual harassment under Title VII. 69 F.4th at 982. This Court ordered 

a new trial based on the timeline presented at the first trial—namely, that under that 

timeline the great weight of the evidence indicated the Defendant adequately responded 

within a reasonable time. (Doc. 340 at 10). Accordingly, the Sharp decision does not 

change the great weight of the evidence presented in the first trial.

Plaintiff also moves for reconsideration based on new facts. First, Plaintiff points 

to the deadlocked jury as new facts warranting reconsideration. (Doc. 386 at 4–5). The 

Case 2:19-cv-03182-GMS Document 401 Filed 12/01/23 Page 2 of 3
- 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

outcome of the second trial does not change the weight of the evidence presented at the 

first trial and is not grounds for reconsideration. Second, Plaintiff argues that the record of 

the second trial should be used to sustain the verdict of the first trial. The local rules allow 

this Court to consider facts “that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 

reasonable diligence.” L.R. Civ. 7.2(g). While the evidence in the second trial differs from 

that in the first, there is no indication that evidence was unavailable in the first trial. 

Accordingly, the Court does not find the second trial’s record to be sufficient grounds for 

reconsideration.

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider and Vacate 

the Court’s Order Granting the City of Phoenix’s Motion for a New Trial (Second Motion 

to Reconsider) (Doc. 386) is DENIED.

Dated this 30th day of November, 2023.

Case 2:19-cv-03182-GMS Document 401 Filed 12/01/23 Page 3 of 3