Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00179/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00179-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

Amal Daniel, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

DFS Services, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-0179-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend a Judgment, which the Court

construes as a Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 49). For the reasons stated herein, the Court

denies Plaintiff’s Motion.

BACKGROUND

As set forth in this Court’s February 1, 2011 Order, Plaintiff worked for Defendant

as a Loss Prevention Account Manager from January 2003 to January 2009 when she was

terminated for “inappropriate conduct and policy violations.” (Doc. 29, Ex. 3, 17, 21). The

record shows that throughout Plaintiff’s term at DFS Services, LLC (“DFS”), she received

multiple warnings, most of which stemmed from her violation of various DFS policies. The

Court’s Order set out in some detail the various warnings and reprimands Daniel received

during her last eighteen months at DFS. 

Several months after Plaintiff was terminated, she filed two Charges of

Case 2:10-cv-00179-GMS Document 51 Filed 04/15/11 Page 1 of 4
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

1

 Plaintiff’s Motion states the following: “A motion to alter or amend a judgment

under Rule 60(b) and under New trial under Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil (sic).”

Plaintiff’s case was terminated by an order granting summary judgment, and therefore, the

Court construes Plaintiff’s request to “alter or amend” the Court’s Order as a motion for

reconsideration under Rule 59(e) rather than 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 2 -

Discrimination, both alleging the same facts, with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office,

and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1; Doc. 29, Ex. 24).

Plaintiff then filed a Complaint, alleging discrimination based on Plaintiff’s race and national

origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. (Doc. 1, Ex. 1). Defendant filed a

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 28), which the Court granted, (Doc. 47).

LEGAL STANDARD

Plaintiff has filed what is essentially a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s

Order granting Defendant summary judgment. Plaintiff moves for an amended judgment

under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(b)1

 and 60(b), without offering any specific

argument as to why she is entitled to relief under those rules. A motion to alter or amend a

judgment must be made within 28 days of the entry of judgment. FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e).

Plaintiff’s motion was timely under Rule 59(e), and therefore will be considered under that

rule, as opposed to rule 60(b). Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248

F.3d 892, 898–99 (9th Cir. 2001) ( “a motion for reconsideration is treated as a motion to

alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) if it is [timely] filed”

(internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The granting of a motion for reconsideration “is an extraordinary remedy which

should be used sparingly.” 11 C. WRIGHT & A. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND

PROCEDURE § 2810.1 (2d ed. 1995). Such a motion “‘may not be used to relitigate old

matters, or to raise argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the

entry of judgment.’” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (quoting

WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2810.1). “A motion for

reconsideration should not be used to ask a court ‘to rethink what the court had already

Case 2:10-cv-00179-GMS Document 51 Filed 04/15/11 Page 2 of 4
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

 Plaintiff references two events, Exhibits 100 and 109, that were not specifically

mentioned in her Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. However, these

exhibits were included as attachments to her Response. (Doc. 31, Ex. 100, 109).

3

 “Although [the Court] construe[s] pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants

are bound by the rules of procedure.” Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995)

(citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)).

- 3 -

thought through – rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342,

1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D.

99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). “Arguments that a court was in error on the issues it considered

should be directed to the court of appeals.” Id. (citing Refrigeration Sales Co. v. MitchellJackson, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 6, 7 (N.D. Ill. 1983)).

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration fails to present proper grounds upon which the

Court can reconsider its Order. A motion for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is appropriate

“if the district court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

controlling law.” Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Mantor, 417 F.3d 1060, 1063 n.1 (9th Cir.

2005). Plaintiff’s Motion merely describes the same incidents – either verbatim or minimally

altered – that she presented in her Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary. (Doc. 31).

In deciding Defendant’s Motion, the Court fully considered the arguments and facts

presented, and it will not now reconsider those facts. 

Further, under the guise of offering new facts, Plaintiff offers additional details that

were contained within the exhibits attached to her Response to Defendant’s Motion.2

 The

facts Plaintiff now offers were fully available to her at the time of her Response, as they were

attached to that very document. However, Plaintiff failed to specifically reference in her

Response those portions of the record she now presents for reconsideration.3

 Because these

facts are not “newly discovered” as contemplated by Rule 59(e), the Court will not now

consider them.

Case 2:10-cv-00179-GMS Document 51 Filed 04/15/11 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

The Court fully considered Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the

arguments raised therein, and Plaintiff’s Response to that Motion. Because the Court deems

its disposition of Defendant’s Motion to be proper, and because Plaintiff does not present any

argument justifying reconsideration of this matter, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend a Judgment

(Doc. 49) is DENIED.

DATED this 15th day of April, 2011. 

Case 2:10-cv-00179-GMS Document 51 Filed 04/15/11 Page 4 of 4