Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00791/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00791-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgment

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Permanent General Assurance

Corporation, 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

vs.

Nicolette Davis, 

Defendant/Counterclaimant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 12-791-TUC-FRZ

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Ms. Davis seeking reconsideration of the

Court’s Order dismissing her counterclaims. The motion is denied.

I. Discussion

A motion to reconsider must provide a valid ground for reconsideration by

showing two things. First, it must demonstrate some valid reason why the Court

should reconsider its prior decision. Second, it must set forth facts or law of a strongly

convincing nature to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision.

Courts have advanced three major grounds justifying reconsideration: (1) an

intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; and

(3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

Bahrs v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 795 F. Supp. 965, 967 (D. Ariz. 1992); see also Defenders of

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995)(a motion for reconsideration

should not be used to ask a court to "rethink what the court had already thought throughrightly or wrongly."); Refrigeration Sales Co. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605 F.Supp. 6, 7

Case 4:12-cv-00791-FRZ Document 51 Filed 05/17/13 Page 1 of 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

1

The Court notes that Davis filed a motion to compel (Doc. 34) arguing that Permanent

General gave inadequate responses to requests for admissions and interrogatories. A review of the

pertinent record reflects that Permanent General appropriately responded to the discovery at issue;

the motion to compel is denied.

- 2 -

(N.D.Ill. 1983)(arguments that a court was in error on the issues it considered should be

directed to the court of appeals).

Having reviewed the motion to reconsider and the record in this case, the Court finds no

basis to depart from its original decision. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The motion to reconsider (Doc. 26) is denied.1

DATED this 17th day of May, 2013.

Case 4:12-cv-00791-FRZ Document 51 Filed 05/17/13 Page 2 of 2