Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02360/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02360-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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 

Weltha J. Jones-Rankins, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Cardinal Health, Inc., et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-12-02360-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On May 29, 2013, the Court issued an order granting Defendant’s motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim. Doc. 28. On June 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion 

for reconsideration. Doc. 29. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion. 

I. Background. 

 In Jones-Rankins v. Cardinal Health, Inc., No. CV 10-01626-PHX-FJM, 2011 WL 

629011 (D. Ariz. Dec. 16, 2011) (“Jones-Rankins I”), Plaintiff alleged discriminatory 

conduct against her former employer. Plaintiff’s claim was defeated on the merits. Id. 

In its previous order the Court determined that Jones-Rankins I met the requirements for 

res judicata and therefore precluded Plaintiff from bringing the related claims in this case. 

Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider alleges that the Court improperly considered statements 

made in the briefs of Jones-Rankins I and that there was no identity of claims between the 

two suits. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to 

make new arguments not raised in their original briefs and arguments. See Northwest 

Case 2:12-cv-02360-DGC Document 31 Filed 06/20/13 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 

Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor 

should such motions ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See United States v. Rezzonico, 

32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon 

Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Under Rule 59(e), a motion for 

reconsideration should not be granted unless the Court is presented with newly 

discovered evidence, committed clear error, the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 

there is an intervening change in controlling law. See 389 Orange Street Partners v. 

Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)); Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 

1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). 

III. Analysis. 

Plaintiff’s primary contention is that the first suit did not involve a claim for 

wrongful termination and so the new suit does not share an identity of claims. This 

argument has already been considered and rejected. While the Court acknowledged that 

the second suit contained claims about discrimination surrounding Plaintiff’s discharge 

that were not asserted in the first suit, it found that those claims could have been asserted 

in the first suit and therefore were insufficient to establish that the two suits do not “arise 

from the same transactional nucleus of facts.” Doc. 28 at 4 (quoting Owens v. Kaiser 

Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir. 2001)). 

 Plaintiff objects to the Court’s citations from the “factual background” portion of 

her brief in the first case, which she argues was not part of the claim but rather the factual 

predicate upon which retaliation claims were based. She argues that it is a contradiction 

for the Court to note that the wrongful termination was mentioned in the briefing of the 

first suit and then to hold that the wrongful termination claim was not part of the first suit. 

 Identity of claims does not require that a particular claim was actually brought in 

the first action in the same form in which it is brought in the second action. It requires 

only that the claim “arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts” as the claim in the 

first action, Owens, 244 F.3d at 714, and that the claim “could have been asserted” in the 

Case 2:12-cv-02360-DGC Document 31 Filed 06/20/13 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 

first action, United States ex rel. Barajas v. Northrup Corp., 147 F.3d 905, 909 (9th Cir. 

1998). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, the Court’s conclusion that there was an identity 

of claims did not rest on the fact that wrongful termination was mentioned in the firstcase briefing. As explained in the order, the first suit was initiated nearly one year after 

Plaintiff’s discharge. Doc. 28 at 5. Both suits allege discriminatory action, and all of 

Plaintiff’s claims could have been asserted in the first suit. Id. 

 Plaintiff has not presented new evidence, has not shown that the Court committed 

clear error, and has not demonstrated an intervening change in law. Accordingly, the 

Court will deny the motion for reconsideration. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 29) is denied. 

 Dated this 20th day of June, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02360-DGC Document 31 Filed 06/20/13 Page 3 of 3