Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00188/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00188-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alejandro Araiza
Plaintiff
Milton Kent Mecham
Defendant
Mecham & Associates, Chartered
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Alejandro Araiza, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Milton Kent Mecham doing business as

Mecham & Associates, Chartered,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV10-0188 PHX DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Alejandro Araiza moves for reconsideration of this Court’s order denying

leave to amend (Doc. 42). Doc. 46. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare

circumstances. See Stetter v. Blackpool, No. CV 09-1071-PHX-DGC, 2009 WL 3348522,

at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct.15, 2009). A motion for reconsideration 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, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2

(D. Ariz. Apr. 15, 2008). Nor should reconsideration be used to make new arguments or to

ask the Court to rethink its analysis. Id.; see N. W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip.,

Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:10-cv-00188-DGC Document 55 Filed 12/01/10 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 -

Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for

reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in

fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party

could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of

reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the Court’s initial

decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s initial decision,

or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider

material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. See, e.g.,

Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Plaintiff’s motion fails to satisfy the above factors. Plaintiff argues that it moved to

amend immediately after learning new facts that “supported new claims and the addition of

a party, Ad Astra Recovery Services.” Doc. 46 at 6. He also states that “Defendant did not

provide answers and/or response to Plaintiff’s initial discovery requests” issued on April 19,

two months prior to the June 18 amendment deadline set forth in the Court’s May 20

scheduling order (Doc. 18). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant answered amended discovery

requests only on August 4. Id. at 3. Plaintiff further asserts that “[h]ad this Court not limited

Plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery, and had this Court required that Defendant answer

and/or respond to already-served interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for

admission, the perceived deficiencies with Plaintiff’s discovery efforts would have been

non-existent.” Id. at 6. 

The Court addressed these arguments in its previous order. See Doc. 42. The Court

also notes that Plaintiff never asked the Court to require that Defendant answer alreadyserved discovery, nor did Plaintiff ask the Court to adjust the discovery schedule or

limitations to accommodate Plaintiff’s need for discovery. To the contrary, as noted in the

Court’s previous order, the parties proposed the June 18, 2010 deadline for amending

pleadings, and the Court limited discovery as required by Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) to ensure that

it was proportional to the modest amount at issue in this case. 

Case 2:10-cv-00188-DGC Document 55 Filed 12/01/10 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 46) is denied.

DATED this 1st day of December, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00188-DGC Document 55 Filed 12/01/10 Page 3 of 3