WO 

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

 

Plaintiff Prosight -- Syndicate 1110 At Lloyd’s (the “Plaintiff”) initiated this 

lawsuit against American Builders and Developers LLC (the “Defendant”) seeking a 

declaratory judgment determining that the Plaintiff is not liable to indemnify the Defendant 

for any damages awarded pursuant a separate lawsuit brought against the Defendant by 

Maria Virginia Huizache and Florenciano Axinicuilteco (the “Claimants”). (Doc. 1) On 

August 6, 2018, the Claimants filed a motion for summary judgment, and the motion for 

summary judgment was fully briefed on September 20, 2018. (Docs. 88, 97) On February 

13, 2019, the Court issued an order (the “SJ Order”) granting summary judgment in favor 

of the Claimants. (Doc. 143) 

The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (the “Motion”) (Doc. 146) seeking 

reversal of the SJ Order because the Plaintiff argues that (i) the Court misinterpreted the 

terms of the insurance contract between the parties; (ii) the Court’s award of summary 

judgment was premature as it was made before the close of discovery; and (iii) new 

evidence has come forth in discovery that demonstrates that the Defendant obtained the 

Prosight -- Syndicate 1110 At Lloyd’s, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

American Builders and Developers 

LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-17-04662-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 
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 

insurance policy issued to it by the Plaintiff under false pretenses. (Doc. 146) In response, 

the Claimants argue that the SJ Order should be upheld because (i) the Plaintiff fails to 

identify any manifest error in the Court’s interpretation of the insurance contract between 

the Plaintiff and Defendant, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s new evidence argument lacks merit 

because the Plaintiff was aware of the evidence at issue prior to the SJ Order. (Doc. 173) 

On June 18, 2019, the Court held a status conference at which the parties provided oral 

argument on the Motion and several other pending motions and discovery disputes. 

 Reconsideration is disfavored and “appropriate only in rare circumstances.”

WildEarth Guardians v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 283 F.Supp.3d 783, 795 n.11 (D. 

Ariz. June 21, 2017); see also Bergdale v. Countrywide Bank FSB, No. CV-12-8057-PCTSMM, 2014 WL 12643162, at 2 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2014) (“[Reconsideration] motions 

should not be used for the purpose of asking a court to rethink what the court had already 

thought through-rightly or wrongly.”) A motion for reconsideration will be granted only 

where the 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 Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

The Court finds that the SJ Order was premature in light of new evidence that 

continues to arise throughout the discovery process. The Court’s decision was issued early 

in the discovery process, before much of the substantive evidence between the parties had 

been exchanged. Through the pleadings and argument provided at the status conference, 

the parties have demonstrated that there is additional evidence that must be considered in 

this case prior to an award of summary judgment. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate 

to vacate its earlier Order (Doc. 143) and give the parties leave to re-submit summary 

judgment motions at the close of discovery. As discussed at the status conference, the 

Court will set a dispositive motion deadline by which the parties must file their summary 

judgment motions. However, the Court admonishes the parties to focus their future 
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 

summary judgment arguments on the new evidence brought forth during the discovery 

process and not to re-litigate issues that have already been decided in standing orders. 

 In addition to granting the Motion, the Court will also grant in part the Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend. (Doc. 105) The Plaintiff’s 

request to modify the scheduling order in this case is moot per the Court’s Order (Doc. 

179). However, finding good cause pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Court will allow the Plaintiff to amend its complaint and answer to 

counterclaim solely for the limited purpose of adding facts and allegations pertaining to the 

defense that the insurance contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff is void because 

of the Defendant’s alleged procurement of the insurance contract through material 

misrepresentations or omissions. Finally, as addressed at the status conference, the parties 

shall meet and confer to resolve any outstanding issues related to Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Strike (Doc. 155). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 146) is 

granted; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court’s Order (Doc. 143) is vacated. The 

parties shall have until August 30, 2019, the Dispositive Motion Deadline set forth in the 

Court’s prior Order (Doc. 179), to file any summary judgement motions; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Scheduling 

Order and for Leave to Amend (Doc. 105) is granted in part. The Court grants the Motion 

for Leave to Amend for the limited purpose of allowing the Plaintiff to amend its complaint 

and answer to counterclaim to add facts and allegations pertaining to the defense that the 

insurance contract between the Defendant and the Plaintiff is void because of the 

Defendant’s alleged procurement of the insurance contract through material 

misrepresentations or omissions. The remainder of the Motion for Leave to Amend 

regarding discovery deadlines is denied as moot per the Court’s Order (Doc. 179); and 

/// 
4 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Claimants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s 

Notice of Additional Evidence (Doc. 113) is denied as moot. 

 Dated this 19th day of June, 2019. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge