Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00779/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00779-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

David Tomasello, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

North Arkansas Wholesale Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-0779-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff David Tomasello’s (“Plaintiff”) Objection to

Memorandum Decision and Order, which will be construed as a Motion to Reconsider (Doc.

No. 26) Plaintiff objects to the Court’s Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for

Failure to State a Claim. (Doc. No. 24) The Court will overrule Plaintiff’s Objection for the

reasons set forth below.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a "motion to reconsider." A

litigant subject to an adverse judgment may file either a motion to alter or amend the

judgment under Rule 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the judgment pursuant to Rule

60(b). However, these rules only provide relief from judgments that are "final, appealable

orders." United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 59(e) allows

for the alteration or amendment of a "judgment" within ten days after "entry of the

judgment," FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e), where "judgment" is defined as a decree and any order from

Case 2:06-cv-00779-SMM Document 27 Filed 09/06/07 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 -

which an appeal lies. FED. R. CIV. P. 54(a). Rule 60(b) does not provide relief from

judgments, orders, or proceedings which are not "final," that is, are not final decisions within

the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and generally cannot be appealed immediately. See Sch.

Dist. No. 5 v. Lundgren, 259 F.2d 101, 104 (9th Cir. 1958); see also FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)

advisory committee's note ("The addition of the qualifying word 'final' emphasizes the

character of the judgments, orders or proceedings from which Rule 60(b) affords relief; and

hence interlocutory judgments are not brought within the restrictions of the rule, but rather

they are left subject to the complete power of the court rendering them to afford such relief

from them as justice requires.").

Nevertheless, the trial court has the inherent power to reconsider, set aside, or amend

interlocutory orders at any time prior to entry of a final judgment. Lundgren, 259 F.2d at

104; see generally also John Simmons Co. v. Grier Bros. Co., 258 U.S. 82 (1922).

Under the "law of the case doctrine," courts do not "reexamine an issue previously

decided by the same or higher court in the same case." Lucas Auto. Eng'g, Inc. v.

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 2001). The doctrine is not a

limitation on a tribunal's power, but rather a guide to discretion. Arizona v. California, 460

U.S. 605, 618 (1983). A court may have discretion to depart from the law of the case where:

(1) the first decision was clearly erroneous; (2) there has been an intervening change of law;

(3) the evidence is substantially different; (4) other changed circumstances exist; or (5) a

manifest injustice would otherwise result. United States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876

(9th Cir. 1997). A district court abuses its discretion when it departs from the doctrine of the

law of the case without one of these five requisite conditions. Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d

152, 154 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 951 (1993).

II. DISCUSSION

 In an Order dated August 13, 2007, the Court found that Plaintiff’s claims were timebarred pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) and subsequently dismissed his Complaint.

Plaintiff responded by filing the instant motion, containing ten objections that are either

conclusory or repetitive. For example, Plaintiff accuses the Court of committing perjury and

Case 2:06-cv-00779-SMM Document 27 Filed 09/06/07 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 -

treason (Dkt. 26, “First Objection”), treating the Constitution of the United States with

contempt (Id., “Second Objection”) and perpetrating a fraud (Id., “Third Objection). In

addition, Plaintiff argues that the doctrine of equitable tolling applies to this case since the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) provided him with false information

regarding his right to sue, which is an argument that was considered and ultimately rejected

by the Court’s previous Order granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Id., “Eight

Objection” and “Tenth Objection”). Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any

conditions requisite for departing from the law of the case exist, the Court will deny his

objection. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set for above, 

IT IS ORDERED OVERRULING Plaintiff’s Objection to Memorandum Decision

and Order. (Doc. No. 26)

DATED this 5th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00779-SMM Document 27 Filed 09/06/07 Page 3 of 3