Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02147/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02147-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Idearc Media, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Palmisano & Associates, P.C., an Arizona 

professional corporation and Palmisano 

Law, PLLC, an Arizona professional 

limited liability company, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-09-02147-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are: (1) Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 

66)1

 and (2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 63). The Court now rules on 

the Motions. 

 On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on all of the claims 

in its amended complaint. (Doc. 48). The claims in Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint were 

breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust 

enrichment, and open account. (Doc. 32). The Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to 

summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Defendant Palmisano & 

 

1

 Although Defendants requested oral argument on their Motion for 

Reconsideration, oral argument would not aid the Court’s decisional process. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ request for oral argument is denied. See Partridge v. Reich, 

141 F.3d 920, 926 (9th Cir. 1998); Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Dev. 

Malibu Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). 

Case 2:09-cv-02147-JAT Document 68 Filed 09/05/13 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 

Associates. (Doc. 61). The Court also found that Plaintiff was entitled to summary 

judgment against Defendant Palmisano Law on its breach of contract claim on a 

successor liability theory of mere continuation. (Id.). Because the Court found that 

Defendants were liable for breach of contract, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s alternative 

theories of liability. (Doc. 61 at 18 n.1). 

I. Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 66) 

Defendants seek reconsideration of this Court’s Order granting summary judgment 

to Plaintiff. Defendants assert they are moving for reconsideration pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). (Doc. 66 at 1). 

 Under Rule 59(e), a motion to alter or amend the judgment may be granted only 

on one of four grounds: “1) the motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or 

fact upon which the judgment is based; 2) the moving party presents newly discovered or 

previously unavailable evidence; 3) the motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice 

or 4) there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Turner v. Burlington N. Santa 

Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted; emphasis omitted). Such motions are disfavored and are not the place for parties 

to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Northwest Acceptance 

Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925–26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor should such 

motions ask the Court to “rethink what the court has already thought through—rightly or 

wrongly.” See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) 

(quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 

1983)). 

 Defendants do not discuss how the Rule 59(e) standard applies in this case. 

Rather, Defendants identify three bases for reconsideration: (1) the Court erred in failing 

to consider parol evidence (Doc. 66 at 1); (2) the Court “wrongly” interpreted Arizona 

appellate cases dealing with successor liability (Doc. 66 at 2); and (3) “[t]he Court order 

is silent on Plaintiff’s claims regarding Alter Ego and Unjust Enrichment, so the 

Judgment is not a final Judgment subject to appeal because it does not deal with all 

Case 2:09-cv-02147-JAT Document 68 Filed 09/05/13 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 

claims raised by Plaintiff.” (Id. at 2). Defendants also attached a new declaration in 

support of their response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to their Motion 

for Reconsideration. (Doc. 66-1). 

 With regard to Plaintiff’s arguments that the Court erred in failing to consider 

parol evidence and that the Court wrongly interpreted Arizona appellate cases dealing 

with successor liability, Defendants fail to meet any standard justifying reconsideration. 

Rather, Defendants’ bases for reconsideration simply consist of arguments that were or 

could have been made in response to the Motion for Summary Judgment and express 

disagreement with this Court’s Order. Defendants’ disagreement with the Court’s Order 

is the proper subject of an appeal, but does not justify reconsideration. 

 The Court next turns to Defendants’ third identified basis for reconsideration—

that the Court order is silent on Plaintiff’s claims regarding Alter Ego and Unjust 

Enrichment, so the Judgment is not a final Judgment subject to appeal because it does not 

deal with all claims raised by Plaintiff. Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the Court 

specifically addressed the other claims in the summary judgment Order. Specifically, the 

Court stated: 

Because the Court finds that successor liability under a mere 

continuation theory applies, the Court need not address 

Plaintiff’s arguments that two other theories of successor 

liability apply, that Palmisano Law is the alter ego of 

Palmisano & Associates or that Palmisano Law was unjustly 

enriched. 

(Doc. 61 at 18). As such, the Court specifically addressed Plaintiff’s alternative theories 

of liability. Moreover, Plaintiff’s alternate theories of successor liability and alter ego 

were not separate counts of the complaint, but were merely theories of recovery under 

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim as alleged against Defendant Palmisano Law. 

Accordingly, because the alternate theories of successor liability and alter ego and were 

Case 2:09-cv-02147-JAT Document 68 Filed 09/05/13 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 

not separate counts of the complaint, there was nothing for the Court to dismiss or enter 

judgment on. 

 Further, under Arizona law, although unjust enrichment may properly be listed as 

an alternative theory of recovery in the complaint, see MacCollum v. Perkinson, 913 P.2d 

1097, 1106 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996), unjust enrichment is an alternate theory of liability to a 

breach of contract claim. See Trustmark Ins. Co. v. Bank One, Arizona, NA, 48 P.3d 485, 

492-493 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). Accordingly, because the Court granted Plaintiff relief on 

its breach of contract claim, it did not need to reach the merits of Plaintiff’s unjust 

enrichment claim. Moreover, unjust enrichment cannot be proven when there is an 

alternate theory of recovery. Freeman v. Sorchych, 245 P.3d 927, 936 (Ariz. Ct. App. 

2011) (stating that to prove unjust enrichment, movant must demonstrate the absence of a 

remedy provided by law). To the extent the Court’s prior Order was unclear, the Court 

clarifies that Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim was dismissed with prejudice in its prior 

Order. 

 Finally, it is improper for Defendants to attempt to submit evidence on 

reconsideration that could have been submitted in response to summary judgment. 

 Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 66) is 

denied. 

 II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 63) 

Plaintiff moves for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 

12-341.01 and pursuant to the express language of its contracts with Defendants. 

Defendants did not file a timely response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and 

did not otherwise seek additional time to respond to the motion. The Court could deem 

Defendants’ failure to respond to the motion for attorneys’ fees to be consent to the Court 

granting the Motion. See LRCiv 7.2(i) (stating that, if the required answering 

memoranda are not served and filed, such noncompliance may be deemed consent to the 

granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily). However, 

Case 2:09-cv-02147-JAT Document 68 Filed 09/05/13 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 

the Court will grant Defendants an additional ten days from the date of this Order to 

respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 63). Plaintiff shall have seven 

days from the date the response is filed to file a reply in support of their Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees. However, if Defendants fail to file a response within ten days of the 

date of this Order, the Court will deem the non-response consent to granting the Motion 

for Attorneys’ Fees and will award such attorneys’ fees without further notice to the 

Parties. Moreover, Defense counsel is warned that, in future cases, he must comply with 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court and should not 

rely on the Court granting sua sponte extensions of time. 

 III. Conclusion 

Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 66) is 

denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 63) within ten days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff 

shall have seven days from the date the response is filed to file a reply in support of their 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 63). If Defendants fail to file a response within ten 

days of the date of this Order, the Court will deem the non-response consent to granting 

the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and will award such attorneys’ fees without further notice 

to the Parties. 

 Dated this 5th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:09-cv-02147-JAT Document 68 Filed 09/05/13 Page 5 of 5