Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00801/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00801-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 05:704 Labor Litigation

---

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 NN

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Prudential Equity Group, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Arlene D. Rowland, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-801-PHX-EHC

ORDER

On April 16, 2007, Plaintiff Prudential Equity Group, LLC (“PEG”) filed an

application to confirm an arbitration award in the amount of $137,795.82. (Dkts. 1-9). 

Defendant Rowland, representing herself, filed a motion to dismiss on June 19, 2007.

(Dkt. 19). On March 25, 2008, the Court denied Rowland’s motion to dismiss and

confirmed PEG’s arbitration award (See Dkt. 28). Having found that complete diversity

existed, venue was proper, and Plaintiff brought a timely application, the Court

confirmed the award. See 9 U.S.C. § 9.

Rowland has filed a motion to vacate the confirmation order (Dkt. 29) and a

motion to void or vacate the confirmation order (Dkt. 30). PEG filed a motion for

extension of time to respond to Rowland’s motions. PEG cited Rowland’s numerous

factual and legal allegations contained in her motions and that PEG was going to file a

Case 2:07-cv-00801-EHC Document 45 Filed 05/16/08 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

motion for sanctions under Rule 11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the

60-day extension. The Court granted PEG’s motion to extend its response deadline up

to and including June 24, 2008. In addition, the Court ordered that a clerical error be

corrected; Plaintiff’s correct name is Prudential Equity Group, LLC, not Prudential

Equity Group, Inc. (See Dkt. 39). 

Rowland filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 41) in which she opposes both

the grant for extension of time and the correction of Plaintiff’s name.

Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)(1) provides 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 could not have been brought to its attention

earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv. 7.2(g)(1) (2008). Neither showing has been

met.

First, Rowland objects on the grounds that she did not receive an exact copy of

the proposed form of order; she compares the copy she received with the Court’s Order. 

The Court has discretion to modify the proposed order and did so in this case. 

Second, Rowland claims she was denied due process because she was not given

the opportunity to file a responsive motion opposing the extension of time. However,

the moving party need only state the position of the opposing party regarding a motion

for extension of time or indicate that attempts to contact the opposing party were

unsuccessful, which PEG did. There is no provision that the opposing party must be

given the opportunity to file a response. See LRCiv. 7.3.

Third, Rowland contends she is prejudiced by the Court’s grant of time to file a

“post-judgment FRCP Rule 11 motion.” However, a Rule 11 motion for sanctions is not

before the Court. Thus, Rowland’s arguments against a Rule 11 motion are premature.

Fourth, Rowland argues that Prudential Equity Group, Inc. does not have

standing to claim the arbitration award and changing the name to Prudential Equity

Case 2:07-cv-00801-EHC Document 45 Filed 05/16/08 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

Group, LLC circumvents the “Real Party In Interest Rule.” (Dkt. 39, pp. 6-9). On May

18, 2007, however, Rowland acknowledged receipt of PEG’s request for waiver of

service of summons “in the action of Prudential Equity Group, LLC v. Arlene Rowland.

(Dkt. 14, p. 2). Every single document, including the initial application, filed by PEG

reflects Plaintiff’s name as Prudential Equity Group, LLC.

Rowland has filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Dkt. 31) and an

Application for Permission to Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 32). Rowland was

previously employed as a “registered and licensed Financial Advisor.” (Dkt. 32, p. 2). 

She claims that her unemployment status is “directly related” to her “EEOC claims of

December 2002" and “Prudential’s continued interference” with her employment. (Dkt.

32, p. 2). She is “currently enrolled in a full-time post-graduate degree program” and

pays for her education without any financial aid. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 41) is

denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Application for Permission to

Appeal in Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 32) is denied without prejudice, with leave to file a

financial affidavit.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00801-EHC Document 45 Filed 05/16/08 Page 3 of 3