Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02597/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02597-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

Regional Care Services Corporation, an

Arizona corporation; Regional Care

Services Corporation Health and Welfare

Employee Benefit Plan,

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Companion Life Insurance Company, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-2597-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the motions of Defendant Companion Life

Insurance Company (“Companion”) for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 117, and Motion to Withdraw Admission,

doc. 118, both filed on May 8, 2012. Companion requests oral argument on both motions. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(g)(2), the Court ordered briefing on the motion for reconsideration which the parties have filed. (Doc. 125, 130) Because both motions are fully and

thoroughly briefed, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary. See Mahon v. Credit

Bureau of Placer County, Inc., 171 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 1999). 

1. Motion for Reconsideration

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) governs motions for reconsideration and

states, inter alia, that “[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an

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

Case 2:10-cv-02597-LOA Document 133 Filed 06/11/12 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

- 2 -

could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. 

Although Companion’s motion for reconsideration includes a thorough discussion

of this case and the order at issue, Companion has not shown “manifest error” or

presented “new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s]

attention earlier with reasonable diligence” that would change the Court’s ruling on the

motion for summary judgment. See LRCiv 7.2(g). Accordingly, the Court will deny

Companion’s motion for reconsideration.

2. Motion to Withdraw Admission

In a separate motion, Companion moves to withdraw its admission concerning Dr.

Gietzen’s status as an eligible participant under the Regional Care Services Corporation

Health and Welfare Employee Benefit Plan, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 36(b). (Doc. 118) 

Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion to which Companion has replied. 

(Docs. 126, 131) For the reasons set forth in the Court’s April 24, 2012 Order granting

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, doc. 116 at 4-6, in which the Court specifically addressed the Rule 36(b) issue, the Court will deny Companion’s motion. Nothing

in Companion’s belated motion to withdraw changes the Court’s prior analysis of that

issue. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Companion Life Insurance Company’s Motion

for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, doc. 117, is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Companion Life Insurance

Company’s Motion to Withdraw Admission, doc. 118, is DENIED. 

Dated this 8th day of June, 2012.

Case 2:10-cv-02597-LOA Document 133 Filed 06/11/12 Page 2 of 2