Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02024/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02024-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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 

Liberty Life Insurance Company,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Eric LungMyers, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 10-2024-PHX-JAT 

ORDER

 Pending before the Court is pro se Defendant Eric LungMyers’ (“Defendant”) 

Motion “Seeking Court Clarification Regarding the Court’s Ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 286). 

 On February 11, 2013, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for 

partial summary judgment (Doc. 280). On March 12, 2013, Defendant filed the pending 

motion seeking clarification of the order (Doc. 286). Defendant’s motion essentially asks 

the Court to further explain the conclusions reached in the order. The Court fully 

explained the basis for its analysis in the order and will deny Defendant’s motion to 

explain again. To the extent Defendant’s motion is a motion for reconsideration, the 

Court will also deny Defendant’s motion. 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a 

“motion to reconsider.” A litigant subject to an adverse 

judgment may file either a motion to alter or amend the 

judgment under Rule 59(e) or a motion seeking relief from the 

judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b). Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), 60(b). 

However, these rules only provide relief from judgments that 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 291 Filed 09/17/13 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 

- 2 -

are “final, appealable orders.” United States v. Martin, 226 

F.3d 1042, 1048 n. 8 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Campbell v. Fernando-Sholes, CV 05-0880-PHX-SMM, 2009 WL 2030561, at *3 (D. 

Ariz. July 9, 2009). 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 

(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). 

 Defendant’s motion simply repeats the same arguments made in his response to 

Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and Defendant has made no showing of 

the other factors. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Eric LungMyer’s Motion seeking Court 

Clarification (Doc. 286) is denied. 

 Dated this 17th day of September, 2013. 

Case 2:10-cv-02024-JAT Document 291 Filed 09/17/13 Page 2 of 2