Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01895/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01895-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

M. Theresa de Mol; and Robert Turrill II,

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

Grand Canyon Title Agency, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-10-1895-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On January 27, 2011, the Court issued an order dismissing this case with prejudice 

and judgment was entered accordingly. Docs. 58, 59. Plaintiffs have filed several postjudgment motions. Docs. 60, 61, 68, 74. Each motion will be denied. 

 The motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order will be denied because 

Plaintiff’s have not met the high standard to obtain reconsideration. Motions for 

reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare circumstances. Such a 

motion is routinely denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts 

or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with 

reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th 

Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. 

See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. 

Apr. 15, 2008). 

 The new information provided in the motion for reconsideration is not material to 

the decision to dismiss this action. Nor, contrary to Plaintiffs’ assertion, has the Court 

misapprehended material information previously provided by Plaintiffs. The Court has 

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 85 Filed 03/15/11 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 

reviewed the reply briefs filed after the entry of the dismissal order (Docs. 62, 63, 64), 

but nothing in those documents affects the decision to dismiss this case with prejudice. 

 As explained in the order of dismissal (Doc. 58), Plaintiffs see fraud where it does 

not exist. The instant motion is a perfect example. Plaintiffs claim that the dismissal 

order itself is rife with “false and misleading statements” and “material omissions of 

fact.” Doc. 60 at 6. One example of non-existent fraud is Plaintiffs’ allegation that the 

Court has taken part in a “cover up” as to the true identities of Defendants by having 

omitted “et al” from a case name used by way of background in the order of dismissal. 

Id. at 8. Plaintiffs continue to believe Defendants and their counsel have committed fraud 

by, among other things, misidentifying parties, shortening names, and using acronyms to 

identify parties in briefs. Id. While Plaintiffs are entitled to hold such beliefs, they are 

not sufficient to state a viable claim to relief or otherwise obtain reconsideration of the 

dismissal order. The motion for reconsideration will be denied. 

 The motion to vacate the Clerk’s judgment (Doc. 68) likewise will be denied. 

There is nothing false or misleading about the judgment. Doc. 59. This action properly 

was dismissed with prejudice. As previously explained (Doc. 58), in addition to their 

extensive litigation activities in state court, Plaintiffs have had multiple opportunities to 

plead a viable claim in this Court. The complete failure to do so required a final 

judgment in favor of Defendants. 

 The motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59 

(Doc. 74) contains the same types of accusations and arguments set forth in the other 

post-judgment motions (Docs. 60, 68). The Rule 59 motion will be denied. 

 Plaintiffs seek sanctions against Defendants and their counsel for, among other 

things, not serving Plaintiffs with “exact” copies of the documents electronically filed 

with the Court. Doc. 61. The discrepancies include slightly different margin sizes and 

the absence of filing header stamps on the copies mailed to Plaintiffs. Id. at 3. Plaintiffs 

also cry foul over a defense attorney’s alleged failure to mail them copies of a notice of 

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 85 Filed 03/15/11 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 

joinder (Doc. 25) and a corporate disclosure statement (Doc. 31), but Plaintiffs identify 

no resulting prejudice. The motion for sanctions will be denied as wholly without merit. 

The request for reimbursement of process server costs (Doc. 61 at 2) will be denied as 

Plaintiffs have not established full compliance with Rule 4(d)(1). 

IT IS ORDERED:

 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 60), motion for sanctions 

(Doc. 61), motion to vacate judgment (Doc. 68), and motion for new trial or to alter or 

amend judgment (Doc. 74) are denied. 

 2. Plaintiffs are advised that any further motions seeking post-judgment relief 

will be summarily denied. 

 Dated this 15th day of March, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-01895-DGC Document 85 Filed 03/15/11 Page 3 of 3