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WO NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kingman Airport Authority,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

City of Kingman, 

Defendant. 

No. CV-17-08260-PCT-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue are Plaintiff Kingman Airport Authority’s (“KAA”) Motion for a New 

Trial and Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 28, Mot.), to which 

Defendant City of Kingman (“Kingman”) filed a Response (Doc. 29, Resp.) and KAA 

filed a Reply (Doc. 30, Reply). KAA has also filed an Emergency Request for Expedited 

Decision (Doc. 31). 

In its Complaint (Doc. 1, Compl.), KAA brought claims under the Contracts 

Clauses of the United States and Arizona Constitutions, seeking among other things a 

permanent injunction to preclude Kingman from condemning KAA’s leasehold interest in 

the Kingman Airport. The Court granted Kingman’s motion to dismiss KAA’s claims 

because the claims—specifically, the invocation of the Contracts Clauses to try to enforce 

the terms of the Lease entered into between KAA and Kingman and prevent Kingman 

from condemning KAA’s leasehold interest in any manner—violated the reserved powers 

doctrine. (Doc. 26, Order.) The Court thus entered Judgment (Doc. 27) and closed this 

case. 
- 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 

 Four days after KAA filed this action, Kingman filed a parallel action in Arizona 

state court, which KAA removed to this Court. (Case No. CV-17-08272-PCT-JJT.) In 

that case, the Court granted Kingman’s Motion to Remand for largely the same reasons 

as the Court dismissed this case. Moreover, in the Orders in both cases, the Court 

recognized that KAA would be able to raise its defenses to Kingman’s attempted 

condemnation of KAA’s leasehold interest in state court. (E.g., Order at 7-8.) 

 KAA then filed the present Motions under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

59(a)(1)(B) and 15(a)(2), asking the Court to vacate its Judgment and allow KAA to 

amend its Complaint to seek the enforcement of the Lease and compensation for any 

condemnation of KAA’s leasehold interest instead of an injunction preventing Kingman 

from condemning the leasehold interest in any manner, as KAA originally sought. (Mot. 

at 1; Doc. 28-1, Proposed First Am. Compl.) Kingman opposes reviving this case because 

(1) KAA had an opportunity to amend its Complaint after Kingman filed its Motion to 

Dismiss, but failed to do so; (2) denying KAA relief from the judgment supports the 

policies of deterring plaintiffs from using a court “as a sounding board to discover holes 

in their arguments” and the finality of judgments; and (3) KAA has not shown that its 

substantial rights have been affected, as required for the Court to vacate is judgment 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 61. (Resp. at 1-6.) 

 The Court agrees with Kingman that KAA had an opportunity to amend its 

Complaint after Kingman raised the reserved powers doctrine issue in its Motion to 

Dismiss, but did not so amend. More importantly, KAA has not shown that its substantial 

rights have been affected by the Court’s judgment. As Kingman points out, the proposed 

recast Complaint does not change the Court’s conclusion that, under the reserved powers 

doctrine, Kingman’s act of condemnation in and of itself cannot contravene the Contracts 

Clause. Enforcement of the terms of the Lease as well as defenses to Kingman’s 

attempted condemnation of KAA’s leasehold interest are matters of state law that KAA is 

presumably raising in the ongoing state court proceeding.1

 The Court must thus conclude 

 

1

 KAA’s Emergency Request for Expedited Decision indicates that the state court 
- 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 

that its Judgment does not affect KAA’s substantial rights. In the alternative, viewed 

through the lens of Rule 59(e), KAA does not succeed in identifying the “highly unusual 

circumstances” required to obtain relief from the Court’s judgment. (See Reply at 2 

(citing Ferris v. City of San Jose, 2013 WL 1120805, at *2 (9th Cir. 1999)).) 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Emergency Request for 

Expedited Decision (Doc. 31). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a New Trial and 

Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (Doc. 28). This case remains closed. 

 Dated this 9th day of March, 2018. 

 

 action has proceeded and the state court has set a hearing for March 21, 2018. (Doc. 31.) 

Honorable John J. Tuchi

United States District Judge