Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00961/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00961-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Wrongful Death

---

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 

Stephanie McCollum, as Conservator for 

the minor wrongful death beneficiaries, on 

behalf of all wrongful death beneficiaries; 

and as Personal Representative of the estate 

of Marcela Baca, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UPS Ground Freight Incorporated, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-0961-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On August 30, 2012, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in 

part Defendants UPS Ground Freight, Inc. (“UPS Freight”), Alfredo Duenas, and Wilmer 

Santos-Maldonado’s revised motion for summary judgment. Doc. 81. Defendants have 

filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of summary judgment on 

Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. Doc. 85. The Court will deny the motion. 

 Motions for reconsideration are granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of 

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Such a motion will be 

denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority 

that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable 

diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. 

Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. April 15, 

2008). Nor should a motion for reconsideration ask the Court to rethink its analysis. 

Case 2:11-cv-00961-DGC Document 86 Filed 09/17/12 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 

United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). Reconsideration 

is appropriate only if the district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, 

(2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 

intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. 

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

 The Court denied summary judgment on the punitive damages claim because a 

jury could find that Mr. Duenas’s conduct of driving a tractor in an arguably fatigued 

state through an intersection with a red light, combined with the deficiencies in 

Defendants’ driver’s logs, manifests a conscious disregard of a substantial risk of 

significant harm to others. See Doc. 81, at 10. Defendants assert that the Court 

overlooked or misapprehended the fact that none of the evidence relied upon by Plaintiff 

in support of her punitive damages claim is causally related to the subject accident, and 

that this evidence cannot be used to prove her claim for punitive damages. Doc. 85, at 3. 

Specifically, Plaintiff’s arguments related to Mr. Duenas’s financial incentive, errors in 

Mr. Duenas’s log books, and the bald tire should be excluded from the Court’s punitive 

damages analysis because they are not causally related to the accident. Id. at 4-5. 

Defendants argue that the Court is left only with evidence that Mr. Duenas did not get 

enough sleep before running a red light, which is insufficient to meet the “evil mind” 

requirement for punitive damages. Id. at 4-6. 

 Plaintiff’s arguments related to financial incentive and log book errors are relevant 

to whether Mr. Duenas operated the tractor in such a fatigued state as to manifest 

conscious disregard of substantial risk. Plaintiff suggested that being paid by the mile, 

with no electronic monitoring, was an incentive for the inaccurate log books. Doc. 73, 

at 11. Defendants contend that financial incentive is not causally related to the accident 

because at the time of the accident Mr. Duenas had dropped off his cargo and was not 

being paid for the miles to drive home. Doc. 85, at 4. But Duenas may nonetheless have 

made financially motivated choices prior to dropping off his cargo that contributed to his 

fatigue at the time of the accident. See Saucedo ex rel. Sinaloa v. Salvation Army, 24 

Case 2:11-cv-00961-DGC Document 86 Filed 09/17/12 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 

P.3d 1274, 1279 (Ariz. App. 2001) (“[T]he conduct giving rise to punitive damages must 

be a proximate cause of the harm inflicted. . . . [P]unitive damages are proper when 

conduct giving rise to punitive damages contributes to, or is a cause of, the injury.”). 

Plaintiff alleges that financial incentives led Mr. Duenas to falsify his log books by 

driving when he should have been out of service and understating the length of time for 

vehicle safety inspections. Doc. 73, at 11. Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot rely on 

inaccuracies in Mr. Duenas’s log books to prove her punitive damages claim because the 

Court granted summary judgment for Defendants on Plaintiff’s claim that Mr. Duenas did 

not take 10 consecutive hours off duty before starting his shift. Doc. 85, at 5; see

Doc. 81, at 7. The Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim that Mr. Duenas 

operated the tractor when he was impaired by fatigue. Doc. 81, at 5. Log books that 

inaccurately report the length of time that Mr. Duenas was in service, if motivated by 

financial interests as Plaintiff alleges, may demonstrate that Mr. Duenas allowed himself 

to become so fatigued that he drove through the intersection on a red light. See Hyatt 

Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn, 907 P.2d 506, 518 (Ariz. App. 1995). 

The Court granted summary judgment on Plaintiff’s negligent maintenance and 

inspection claim because, as Defendants correctly note, Plaintiff admitted that the bald 

tire was not a proximate cause of the accident. Doc. 85, at 5; Doc. 81, at 7-8. Even 

without relying on evidence of a bald tire, Mr. Duenas’s operation of the tractor while 

fatigued and the inaccuracies in his driver’s logs raise a question of fact as to whether he 

“consciously pursued a course of conduct knowing that it created a substantial risk of 

significant harm to others.” Rawlings v. Apodaca, 726 P.2d 565, 578 (Ariz. 1986). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration 

(Doc. 85) is denied. 

Dated this 17th day of September, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-00961-DGC Document 86 Filed 09/17/12 Page 3 of 3