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 

Navajo Nation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jefferson Sessions, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-18-08072-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Defendant Austin Shipley’s Motion for Reconsideration 

(Doc. 52). Shipley requests that the Court reconsider its Order (Doc. 51) declining to set 

aside a previous Order (Doc. 44) that authorized the Navajo Nation to serve Shipley by 

publication. 

 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for 

reconsideration is appropriate where 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.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 

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

Shipley presents no newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in the 

controlling law. Thus, he must establish that the Court’s previous order declining to set 

aside a separate previous order was clear error or manifestly unjust. As the Court 

previously noted, at the time the Court authorized service of process by publication, 
- 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 

Shipley’s location was unknown, and he had not disclosed the fact that he was out of the 

country. (Doc. 51). Service of process by publication under the circumstances was proper 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) and Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.1(l) 

(allowing service by publication “if . . . the last known address of the person to be served 

is within Arizona but . . . the serving party, despite reasonably diligent efforts, has been 

unable to ascertain the person’s current address . . . and . . . service by publication is the 

best means practicable in the circumstances for providing the person with notice of the 

action’s commencement.”). 

Shipley’s current motion discloses, for the first time, that he is currently on active 

duty military service in Syria, and it is uncertain what the duration of his deployment will 

be. He contends that service of process on him is governed by Servicemembers Civil Relief 

Act (“SCRA”), 50 U.S.C. §§ 3901–4043, and that the service by publication authorized by 

the Court’s order (Doc. 44) does not satisfy due process. But Shipley points to no language 

in the SCRA governing the service of process for service members on active duty abroad. 

There is authority for the conclusion that the SCRA does not affect methods of 

service on service members overseas. See Oversole v. Manci, 216 P.3d 621, 623 (Colo. 

App. 2009) (“The SCRA does not exempt military service members from service of 

process.”); 53A Am. Jur. 2d Military and Civil Defense § 379 (“The [SCRA], despite its 

limitations tolling provisions for periods of active duty in military service, does not by its 

terms exempt persons in the Armed Forces from the service of civil process during the 

period of their military service and does not prescribe the method of service.”). Since 

nothing in the SCRA establishes that a service member defendant on active duty cannot be 

served by publication, Shipley’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 

 Shipley also moves to stay this litigation because of his ongoing military service. 

The SCRA provides relevant guidance to the Court on this point by outlining situations in 

which servicemembers who are aware of litigation pending against them may obtain stays 

of that litigation. See 50 U.S.C. § 3932(a). It provides that “[a]t any stage before final 

judgment in a civil action or proceeding in which a servicemember . . . is a party, the 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 

. . . shall, upon application by the servicemember, stay the action for a period of not less 

than 90 days, if” certain conditions are met. Id. (b)(1). 

Shipley has not presented the required documentation establishing that those 

conditions are met here. However, should Shipley do so, the Court will then entertain his 

request for a stay under the SCRA. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Austin Shipley’s Motion for 

Reconsideration (Doc. 52) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 29th day of January, 2019.