Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04339/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-04339-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Declaratory Judgement

---

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

Kellye Evans,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Scribe One Limited LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-04339-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

The Court previously issued an order granting Plaintiff Kellye Evans’ motion under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2) for an award of costs and fees associated with 

serving Defendant Bruce Tizes, contingent upon Evans submitting an itemization of those 

fees and costs (which she has since done). (Docs. 159, 164.) Tizes later filed a motion for 

reconsideration, along with objections to Evans’ itemized accounting. (Doc. 162, 168.) 

The Court ordered Evans to file a response to Tizes’ motion for reconsideration, which she 

has done. (Docs. 163, 166.) Despite the Court’s explicit order that “[n]o reply may be 

filed” (Doc. 163), Tizes filed a reply to Evans’ response to the motion for reconsideration 

(Doc. 169), which Evans has moved to strike (Doc. 170). Evans also filed a reply to Tizes’ 

objections to her itemized accounting. (Doc. 175.)

Evans’ motion to strike will be granted. Tizes’ reply is unauthorized and violates 

this Court’s explicit order and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) (“No response to a 

motion for reconsideration and no reply to the response may be filed unless otherwise 

Case 2:19-cv-04339-DLR Document 177 Filed 04/23/20 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

ordered by the Court[.]”). 

Tizes’ motion for reconsideration will be denied. If a motion for reconsideration is 

based “on new matters being brought the Court’s attention for the first time,” LRCiv 7.2(g) 

requires the movant to “point out with specificity . . . the reasons they were not presented 

to the Court earlier[.]” If the movant fails to do so, the Court may deny the motion. Here, 

Tizes’ motion for reconsideration is based on a host of perceived defects in the waiver of 

service form Evans sent him that were not raised in Tizes’ original response in opposition 

to Evans’ motion for service-related fees and costs. Nowhere in Tizes’ motion for 

reconsideration does he explain why these issues could not have been presented to the 

Court earlier.

Instead, Tizes claims that he pointed out these defects in lines 7-12 of his original 

response. (Doc. 162 at 1.) Not so. Lines 7-12 of Tizes’ original response state:

After the sole service attempt noted above, Plaintiff sent a 

procedurally defective service waiver request to Defendant via 

email. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1) and Ariz. R. Civ. P. 4.2 both 

require that a request to waive service must be:

1) accompanied by 2 copies of the waiver form . . . and a 

prepaid means for returning the form; and

2) be sent by first-class mail or other reliable means.

(Doc. 38 at 2.) The only reasonable interpretation of this passage is that Tizes believed 

Evans’ service waiver request was defective for two procedural reasons: (1) it was not 

accompanied by 2 copies of the waiver form and a prepaid means for returning the form 

and (2) it was not sent by first-class mail or other reliable means. The Court addressed 

these arguments in its prior order. Nowhere in his original response did Tizes raise or 

develop the arguments he now brings, which largely concern the substance of the waiver 

request, as opposed to the procedure for serving it. The Court will not endlessly relitigate 

every order issued in this case, particularly when relevant arguments could and should have 

been raised earlier. (See, e.g., Doc. 142 at 2 (“A motion for reconsideration is not an 

opportunity to take a mulligan, and the Court did not err (manifestly or otherwise) by not 

considering arguments and authorities not before it.”).) The motion for reconsideration is 

Case 2:19-cv-04339-DLR Document 177 Filed 04/23/20 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

denied.

Moving on to the size of the fee award, the Court may award Evans the expenses 

she incurred after the waiver of service request either expired or was rejected, along with 

reasonable expenses incurred in bringing a motion to collect those fees. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4(d)(2); Wright & Miller, § 1092.1. Evans asked Tizes to waive service on May 30, 2019. 

Accordingly, Tizes objects to fees incurred prior to June 30, 2019, when that waiver request 

would have expired. Tizes also objects to certain fee entries from after June 30 as 

insufficiently related to Evans’ service efforts.

Having reviewed Evans’ fee itemization, Tizes’ objections, and Evans’ reply, the 

Court will overrule Tizes’ objections to the post-June 30 fees. Those fees are sufficiently 

related to Evans’ efforts to serve Tizes. The Court will sustain Tizes’ objections to fees 

incurred prior to June 30 because the Court cannot confidently determine when Tizes 

definitively refused Evans’ request to waive service. Evans has identified this date as June 

14, 2019 in some places (Doc. 175 at 3) and June 18, 2019 in others (Docs. 48 at 3, 166-1 

at 6). Given this uncertainty, the Court will resolve doubts in favor of Tizes and discount 

fees incurred prior to June 30, 2019, the date the service waiver request ordinarily would 

have expired absent a clear rejection. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. Evans’ motion to strike (Doc. 170) is GRANTED. Doc. 169 is stricken from 

the record.

2. Tizes’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 162) is DENIED.

3. Evans’ is awarded $3,036.25 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).

Dated this 23rd day of April, 2020.

Douglas L. Rayes

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-04339-DLR Document 177 Filed 04/23/20 Page 3 of 3