Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08103/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08103-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

Manuel Madrid, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Concho Elementary School District

No. 6 of Apache County, an Arizona

political subdivision; Concho Elementary

School District No. 6 of Apache County

Governing Board Members Carl Dye,

Cecilia Roberts, John Taylor, Tracy

Candelaria, and Angela Murphy, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-8103-PCT-DGC

ORDER

On June 6, 2008, the Court issued an order compelling arbitration of this matter.

Dkt. #41. Plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Dkt. #42. The Court

will deny the motion.

I. Background.

Concho Elementary School District No. 6 operates one school in Apache County,

Arizona. Plaintiff worked as the District’s superintendent beginning in July 2005. On

September 18, 2007, the District’s Governing Board terminated Plaintiff’s employment.

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint against the District and

individual members of the Board. Dkt. #1. The complaint asserts six claims: a request for

injunctive and declaratory relief, breach of contract, violation of the Arizona Open Meeting

Case 3:07-cv-08103-DGC Document 43 Filed 07/09/08 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 -

Law, violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, and civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

II. Discussion.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM (ECV), 2008 WL 1776502,

at *2 (D. Ariz. April 15, 2008) (citing Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342,

1351 (D. Ariz. 1995)). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for

reconsideration. See id. (citing Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D.

Haw. 1988)). Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to ask the Court

to rethink its analysis. See id. (citing United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116

(D. Ariz. 1998)); see also N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918,

925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for

reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in

fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party

could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of

reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the Court’s initial

decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s initial decision,

or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider

material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. See, e.g.,

Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Plaintiff has not demonstrated any of these circumstances. Plaintiff instead reasserts

arguments previously made, asserts a new argument that could have been made prior to the

issuance of the Court’s order, and asks the Court to rethink its analysis.

Plaintiff argues that “[o]nly the contract causes of action in this case are subject to

arbitration[.]” Dkt. #42 at 3. The Court explicitly rejected this argument in its prior order.

Dkt. #41 at 4-5. The Court held that in light of the federal policy favoring arbitration, and

Plaintiff’s admission that this entire matter is arbitrable, the motion to compel arbitration

Case 3:07-cv-08103-DGC Document 43 Filed 07/09/08 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 -

should be granted. Id.

Plaintiff contends that the Court has misconstrued his admissions that “[t]his matter

arises out of contract”; that “[t]he parties have agreed that any dispute arising out of the

contract is subject to arbitration”; and that this matter should “be assigned in accordance with

[the arbitration] provision to an arbitrator.” Dkt. #42 at 8; see Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 16-17. Plaintiff

asserts that these statements relate only to count one of the complaint. Dkt. #42 at 8. But

count one asserts an injunctive relief claim requesting that “this matter” be assigned to an

arbitrator. Dkt. #1 ¶ 17. Plaintiff’s request for arbitration was not made in, or limited to, the

breach of contract claim asserted in count two of the complaint. See id. ¶¶ 20-28.

Relying on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp., 460

U.S. 1 (1983), Plaintiff contends that the Court may not compel arbitration under the Federal

Arbitration Act because it lacks independent federal jurisdiction over the breach of contract

claim. Dkt. #42 at 7. Plaintiff did not make this argument in response to the motion to

compel arbitration. See Dkt. #34.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s reliance on Moses H. Cone is misplaced. As Plaintiff states in

his motion, a federal district court may compel arbitration when the court has “‘jurisdiction

over a suit on the underlying dispute; hence there must be diversity of citizenship or some

other independent basis for federal jurisdiction[.]’” Dkt. #42 at 7 (quoting Moses H. Cone,

460 U.S. at 25 n.32). The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this suit based on the

federal claims asserted in the complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Plaintiff has made no showing that reconsideration is appropriate. The Court

accordingly will deny his motion.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #42) is denied.

DATED this 9th day of July, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08103-DGC Document 43 Filed 07/09/08 Page 3 of 3