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 

Jonathan Marshall, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

La Mesa Rehabilitation and Care Center, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-15-02082-PHX-DLR 

ORDER 

 This medical negligence and wrongful death action was brought by Plaintiff 

Jonathan Marshall ("Jonathan") individually as the surviving son of Melissa Marshall 

(the person whose allegedly wrongful death Jonathan sought to vindicate), and on behalf 

of Melissa Marshall's other surviving kin, Nicholas Marshall ("Nicholas") and Ruth 

Juntilla ("Ruth"). On December 14, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss 

Nicholas and Ruth from this case. (Doc. 99.) The Court granted the parties' stipulation 

on December 19, 2017 and dismissed Nicholas and Ruth, leaving Jonathan as the only 

remaining plaintiff. (Doc. 102.) Neither the parties' stipulation nor the Court's order 

specified whether that dismissal was with or without prejudice. 

 On January 3, 2018, Jonathan, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the nowdismissed Nicholas and Ruth, filed two documents. The first was a notice of settlement, 

which indicated that Jonathan, Nicholas, and Ruth had reached a settlement with 

Defendants resolving all claims. (Doc. 106.) The second was a motion (not a stipulation) 

Case 2:15-cv-02082-DLR Document 109 Filed 01/12/18 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 

to dismiss the claims on behalf of Nicholas and Ruth with prejudice. (Doc. 105.) That 

same day, and in response to the notice of settlement, the Court issued an order vacating 

all pending hearings and instructing the Clerk or the Court to terminate this matter on 

February 5, 2018 unless, before then, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss. (Doc. 

107.) The Court also denied Jonathan's motion to dismiss Nicholas and Ruth as moot in 

light of the Court's December 19, 2017 order granting the parties' stipulation to the same. 

In essence, Jonathan's motion did not ask the Court to amend its December 19, 2017 

order to specify that Nicholas and Ruth's claims are dismissed with prejudice. Jonathan, 

instead, asked the Court to dismiss with prejudice parties who had already been dismissed 

and, therefore, were no longer part of this lawsuit. 

 Now before the Court is a motion (again, not a stipulation) filed by Defendants

asking the Court to reconsider its order denying Jonathan's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 

108.) Defendants explain that the parties' December 14, 2017 stipulation to dismiss 

Nicholas and Ruth had inadvertently left off the language "with prejudice," that a 

condition of the parties' settlement is that the claims of Nicholas and Ruth be dismissed 

with prejudice, and that Jonathan's motion to dismiss was intended to accomplish this. 

Defendants therefore ask the Court to (1) withdraw its December 19, 2017 order granting 

the parties' stipulation to dismiss Nicholas and Ruth and (2) grant Jonathan's motion to 

dismiss the claims of Nicholas and Ruth with prejudice. 

 Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g), motions for reconsideration may 

be granted upon "a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority 

that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence." 

Further, "no motion for reconsideration may be granted unless the Court provides an 

opportunity for response." LRCiv 7.2(g)(2). As a technical matter, Defendants' motion 

does not meet this standard, and to grant it the Court would need to afford Jonathan the 

opportunity to file a response brief because, as noted, Defendants filed the motion 

unilaterally rather than jointly. The latter requirement is pointless, of course, because 

Defendants ask the Court to grant a motion that Jonathan filed. The Court can safely 

Case 2:15-cv-02082-DLR Document 109 Filed 01/12/18 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 

assume, then, that Jonathan has no objection. These procedural gymnastics might have 

been avoided had the parties simply filed a stipulation to modify or amend the Court's 

December 19, 2017 order to clarify that the stipulated dismissal of Nicholas and Ruth 

was with prejudice, which is the relief actually sought. In a related vein, if the parties are 

in agreement on action that they wish the Court to take, they are encouraged to file 

stipulations rather than motions, that way the Court knows that no party intends to file a 

response. 

 In any event, Defendants' motion for reconsideration has clarified the intent behind 

Jonathan's motion to re-dismiss Nicholas and Ruth. For good cause shown, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion (Doc. 108) is GRANTED as follows: 

 1. The Court's December 19, 2017 order granting the parties' Stipulation to 

Dismiss Nicholas Marshall and Ruth Juntilla (Doc. 102) is vacated. 

 2. Jonathan's unopposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Nicholas Marshall and Ruth 

Juntilla (Doc. 105) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs Nicholas Marshall and Ruth Juntilla are 

dismissed from this action with prejudice. 

 Dated this 12th day of January, 2018. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

 

 

Case 2:15-cv-02082-DLR Document 109 Filed 01/12/18 Page 3 of 3