Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00206/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00206-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 H. Cheren; Catherine A. Conrad 

Cheren, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Compass Bank; BBVA Compass Bank; and 

Does 1 through 10, 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-00206-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant1

 Compass Bank’s Application for 

Attorneys’ Fees Related to Plaintiffs’ Motions for Sanctions (Doc. 25) and Plaintiffs’ 

Request for Reconsideration (Doc. 26). 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On March 23, and on July 24, 2012, Plaintiffs filed three separate but identical 

motions for sanctions against Defendant (Docs. 14, 15, 19) because Defendant argued 

that a contract did not exist in this case in its motion to dismiss (Doc. 12). In opposing 

Plaintiffs’ motions for sanctions, Defendant requested that the Court award its attorneys’ 

fees expended in responding to Plaintiffs’ motions. (Doc. 17 at 9). Defendant requested 

an amount of $1,000 or such other amount as the Court deemed appropriate. (Id.). The 

Court granted Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees and explained the basis for granting 

 

1

 As Defendant, Compass Bank, has explained in a prior Motion, Defendants are a single entity for purposes of this order. (Doc. 12 at 1). 

Case 2:12-cv-00206-JAT Document 37 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Defendant’s request in the Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 24 at 11-

14). 

 Following the Court’s Order, Defendant filed its Application for Attorneys’ Fees 

justifying the actual attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Plaintiffs’ motion and the 

amount Defendant has agreed to pay its counsel. (Doc. 25 at 1). Defendant has agreed to 

pay counsel $5,955.50. (Id.). Plaintiff then filed the pending Request for 

Reconsideration, asking the Court to reconsider the award of attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 26). 

II. ANALYSIS 

 A. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 26) 

 Plaintiffs initially argue that they filed only one motion for sanctions. (Id. at 1). 

While all three motions for sanctions were identical, Plaintiff explains that the second 

motion for sanctions (Doc. 15) was filed in error and that the third motion for sanctions 

(Doc. 19) was filed “[a]fter a considerable time had passed and no notice of a hearing 

came from the Court.” (Doc. 26 at 2). The result of filing three separate but identical 

motions is irrelevant to this Court’s analysis and decision. The Court’s award of 

attorneys’ fees was based on Defendant’s sole response to all three motions (Doc. 17). 

 Plaintiffs go on to argue that their Rule 11 motion was well founded and ask the 

Court to reconsider the award of attorneys’ fees. (Doc. 26 at 2). Plaintiffs have not cited 

any procedural rule or case law to justify their request. 

 Plaintiff’s motion is for reconsideration of an interlocutory order because no 

judgment has been ordered in this case. This court has adopted the following standards 

on which motions for reconsideration will be granted for interlocutory orders: 

(1) There are material differences in fact or law from that 

presented to the Court and, at the time of the Court’s decision, 

the party moving for reconsideration could not have known of 

the factual or legal differences through reasonable diligence; 

(2) There are new material facts that happened after the 

Court’s decision; 

(3) There has been a change in the law that was decided or 

enacted after the Court’s decision; or 

Case 2:12-cv-00206-JAT Document 37 Filed 06/24/13 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

(4) The movant makes a convincing showing that the Court 

failed to consider material facts that were presented to the 

Court before the Court’s decision. 

No motion for reconsideration shall repeat in any manner any 

oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition 

to the original motion. 

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

 Plaintiffs urge reconsideration on the ground that Defendant filed its motion to 

dismiss while it knowingly denied that a contract existed. (Doc. 26 at 2). Plaintiffs claim 

that their attached declaration proves that a contract existed. (Id.). Plaintiffs do not point 

out what parts of the fifty page declaration and attached documents serve as proof. 

Nevertheless, even if the Court were to cull Plaintiffs’ declaration in order to verify 

Plaintiffs’ claim for them, the Court would still deny Plaintiffs’ motion for 

reconsideration because Plaintiffs have failed to meet any of the standards set out in 

Motorola. 

 Plaintiffs have failed to show that there are any material differences in fact or law 

from those presented to the Court that could not have been known to Plaintiffs at the time 

of the Court’s Order. Plaintiffs’ declaration and the attached documents (Doc. 26 at 4-

53) were known to Plaintiffs when the Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss 

(Doc. 24). Further, Plaintiffs have claimed neither that new material facts have happened 

nor that there has been a change in the law following the Court’s decision. Finally, 

Plaintiffs have failed to make a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider 

material facts that were presented to the Court before the Court’s decision. 

 Plaintiffs merely repeat in their motion for reconsideration the same arguments 

they made in their motion for sanctions. Plaintiffs argued in their motion for sanctions 

that “Defendant, at all relevant times, knew the allegations in support of the Motion [to 

dismiss] were untrue, that the Complaint contained all necessary allegations; that 

Defendant’s own documents showed that a contract had been entered into; and, that all 

necessary elements claimed missing from the Complaint were, in fact, contained within 

Case 2:12-cv-00206-JAT Document 37 Filed 06/24/13 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

the [Complaint].” (Doc. 14 at 5). Plaintiffs then re-argued in their motion for 

reconsideration that “Defendants . . . knew that their factual allegations [in the motion to 

dismiss], i.e., that the essential elements of a contract . . . did not exist, were simply not 

true statements and were not supported by any evidence. That their statements were false 

and was [sic] known to be false by the Defendants when such allegations were made.” 

(Doc. 26 at 2). The Court has already addressed this claim by Plaintiffs and will not 

endeavor to explain its conclusion again. See (Doc. 24 at 11-14). 

B. Defendant’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. 25) 

 In its Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, Defendant requested the Court 

award attorneys’ fees expended in responding to Plaintiffs’ motion in the amount of 

$1,000. (Doc. 17 at 9). The Court then awarded this amount to Defendant pending the 

filing of an application for attorneys’ fees to justify this amount. (Doc. 24 at 13). 

Defendant has filed its application justifying up to $5,955.50. (Doc. 25 at 1). Because 

Defendant originally requested $1,000 and the Court awarded $1,000 to Defendant, and 

further because Defendant has justified at least this amount, the Court now orders 

Plaintiffs to reimburse Defendant $1,000 for forcing Defendant to defend against 

Plaintiffs’ frivolous motion for sanctions. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 26) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees 

(Doc. 25) is granted: the Court awards Defendant $1,000.00 in attorneys’ fees. 

 Dated this 24th day of June, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-00206-JAT Document 37 Filed 06/24/13 Page 4 of 4