Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01632/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01632-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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'srequestforrelief pursuant toRule 59(e) and 60(b)isinappropriate because

the court's July 30, 2012 order is not a final judgment or appealable interlocutory order. See

Balla v. Idaho State Bd. of Corrections, 869 F.2d 461, 466–67 (9th Cir.1989). Moreover,

plaintiff's motion for a new trial under Rule 59(b) is inappropriate because there was no trial

under Rule 59(a). Accordingly, we only consider plaintiff's motion to reconsider pursuant

to Rule 54(b). 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Leanna Smith , 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Barrow Neurological Institute et al, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-01632-PHX-FJM

ORDER

On July 30, 2012 we granted defendants Banner Health System and Scott Elton,

M.D.'s motion for summary judgment (doc. 200). We now have before us plaintiff's motion

for reconsideration, Rule 59 motion, and Rule 60(b) motion (doc. 302), defendants' response

(doc. 306), and plaintiff's reply (doc. 312).1

First, any motion for reconsideration must be filed within 14 days of the filing of the

order that is the subject of the motion. LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). Plaintiff filed her motion over three

months after our order granting defendants summary judgment. Therefore, plaintiff's motion

is untimely, and is denied on this basis. No good cause has been shown for the delay.

Case 2:10-cv-01632-FJM Document 330 Filed 01/18/13 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 -

Moreover, a court “will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order

absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not

have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).

Plaintiff has not met her burden. Plaintiff largely restates facts and arguments that were

presented when we considered the parties' motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff ignores

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1), under which “[n]o motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat any

oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that

resulted in the Order.” Plaintiff's “[f]ailure to comply with [LRCiv 7.2(g)(1)] may be

grounds for denial of the motion." Id. Nevertheless, we briefly address plaintiff's

contentions. We did not invite a responsive filing under LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) because the motion

for reconsideration is without merit.

Plaintiff argues that we committed clear error in not considering Dr. Newberger's

opinion that defendants' reports to Child Protective Services ("CPS") were unreasonable. But

we considered Dr. Newberger's opinion and determined that it would not be admissible at

trial and therefore could not support plaintiff's allegations. See Order of July 30, 2012 at 6

(doc. 200). Plaintiff's dissatisfaction is not a proper basis for reconsideration. 

Plaintiff also argues that new evidence overcomes the presumption that defendants

have not acted with malice. But plaintiff has not demonstrated that with diligence the new

evidence could not have been brought to the court's attention earlier. Plaintiff argues that

defendants refused to schedule depositions before they filed their motion for summary

judgment. But plaintiff failed to file a motion to compel the discovery she needed to

prosecute her case. Indeed, plaintiff did not file any discovery motion until September 27,

2012, nearly two months after our order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment.

We denied the discovery motion noting that plaintiff was given ample time to depose hospital

employees and to pursue the necessary discovery. See Order of October 10, 2012 (doc. 276).

Moreover, even if we were to consider the evidence plaintiff relies on, we would affirm our

original conclusion that plaintiff has not overcome the presumption that defendants acted in

good faith when reporting their observations to CPS. Malice is not an inference that could

Case 2:10-cv-01632-FJM Document 330 Filed 01/18/13 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 -

be drawn from plaintiff's submission. 

Plaintiff next argues that there is sufficient evidence to require a jury to resolve

plaintiff's conspiracy claim against defendants. But plaintiff did not raise that argument in

her response to defendants' motion for summary judgment, and has not explained her failure

to do so. Accordingly, we need not consider it now. 

Plaintiff also suggests that the court erred in deciding that collateral estoppel applies

to the issue of C.R.'s abuse because the juvenile court orders were not final for issue

preclusion or collateral estoppel purposes, and the court did not review the actual hearing

record before determining what was litigated before the juvenile court. Although this

argument differs from that which plaintiff urged in her response to defendants' motion for

summary judgment, plaintiff fails to show why she could not have raised it earlier. Indeed,

none of the cases plaintiff cites were decided after we issued our order. Moreover, the cases

are not dispositive, and thus we reject plaintiff's contentions.

Finally, plaintiff argues that a jury must resolve factual disputes before we can

consider ruling on the issue of qualified immunity. But plaintiff has failed to identify any

factual disputes that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been brought to this court's

attention earlier. Therefore, no basis exists for reconsidering the qualified immunity issue.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for reconsideration,

Rule 59 motion, and Rule 60(b) motion (doc. 302).

DATED this 17th day of January, 2013.

Case 2:10-cv-01632-FJM Document 330 Filed 01/18/13 Page 3 of 3