Aldrete v. Berkshire Hathaway Automotive Incorporated ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Sarah Aldrete, No. CV-21-00622-PHX-SMB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Berkshire Hathaway Automotive LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend or Grant Relief from 15 Judgment (the “Motion”), (Doc. 52), to which Defendants responded, (Doc. 53), and 16 Plaintiff replied, (Doc. 55). Plaintiff also filed a Citation of Supplemental Authority in 17 Support of the Motion, (Doc. 57), to which Defendants replied, (Doc. 58). The Court has 18 considered the parties’ briefing and relevant case law and will deny the Motion for reasons 19 explained below. 20 I. Background 21 The Court provided a more detailed background in the January 6, 2020 Order (the 22 “Order”), (see Doc. 49 at 1–3), and will not reiterate those details here. Rather, the Court 23 incorporates the Order’s background by reference. Relevant here, Defendants Metro Auto 24 Auction and Raymond Kurz (“Metro Auto Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel 25 Arbitration and Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (Doc. 20.) At the same time, BH 26 Automotive, LLC, (“Defendant BHA”) filed a separate Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 32.) 27 After full briefing and oral argument by the parties, the Court granted Metro Auto 28 Defendants’ Motion, ordered that all Defendants were subject to mandatory arbitration, 1 referred Defendant BHA’s Motion to arbitration, and dismissed the case. (Doc. 49 at 11.) 2 Now, Plaintiff asks the Court to “[a]mend the Order” or “grant relief from” it under Rules 3 59(e) and 60(b)(1). (Doc. 52 at 1.) 4 II. Legal Standard 5 Because Plaintiff seeks relief under Rules 59(e) and 60, she essentially asks the 6 Court to reconsider its Order. See Creveling v. Cty. of Mohave, No. CV 05-0995-PHX- 7 SMM, 2005 WL 8161081, at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 17, 2005) (noting the overlapping nature of 8 motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) and motions to alter or amend a judgement 9 under Rule 60). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in 10 rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 11 1995). 12 A Court “will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration . . . absent a showing of 13 some manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been 14 brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). However, a 15 motion for reconsideration is appropriate if “(1) the District Court is presented with newly 16 discovered evidence; (2) the District Court committed clear error in its decision; (3) the 17 District Court's decision was manifestly unjust, or (4) there is an intervening change in 18 controlling law.” Creveling, 2005 WL 8161081, at *1 (citing School Dist. No. 1J, 19 Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). 20 Moreover, a motion for reconsideration should not be used to voice disagreements 21 with a court’s analysis in a previous ruling, repeat prior arguments, or ask the Court to 22 rethink what it has already thought through. See Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 23 1351 (explaining that motions for reconsideration should not be used to ask the court to 24 “rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly”); Motorola, Inc. 25 v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Almost all 26 of the local rules prohibit motions for reconsideration based on arguments already 27 presented to and rejected by the court.”); Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 28 1673 (D. Haw. 1988) (noting that “merely articulat[ing] disagreement with [a] court's 1 analysis in its prior order” is not an appropriate reason to file a motion for reconsideration). 2 III. Discussion 3 Plaintiff challenges the Court’s previous Order on the grounds that the Court 4 committed both legal and factual errors that have resulted in manifest injustice to Plaintiff. 5 (See Doc. 52 at 5–12.) Defendants argues that “Plaintiff has not made any showing of 6 mistake of law or manifest error of law,” (Doc. 53 at 3), but, instead, Plaintiff’s argument 7 were previously considered and rejected by the Court or are new arguments that Plaintiff 8 could have previously raised, which are now barred, (id. at 3–5). Defendants are correct. 9 First, Plaintiff raises arguments that the Court already considered and rejected. 10 Compare (Doc. 52 at 5–10, 11) (arguing that Plaintiff’s hurried signing of an adhesion 11 employment-contract was procedurally unconscionable and that California law on the 12 matter should be persuasive), with (Doc. 49 at 5–6) (explaining that, under Arizona law, 13 Plaintiff’s arguments regarding procedural unconscionability were unpersuasive and that, 14 because Arizona law governs the contract at issue, cases explaining California law were 15 inapposite to the instant case). This in an impermissible use of a motion for 16 reconsiderations and, therefore, the Court rejects it. See Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F. 17 Supp. at 1351 (explaining that motions for reconsideration should not be used to ask the 18 court to “rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly”); White 19 v. Square, Inc., No. 15-CV-04539-JST, 2016 WL 6647927, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2016) 20 (“A party seeking reconsideration under Rule 59 and Rule 60 must do more than rehash 21 arguments or recapitulate cases already considered by the court.”). 22 Second, Plaintiff raises for the first time an argument that the arbitration agreement 23 is substantively unconscionable under the National Labor Relations Act. (See Doc. 52 at 24 10–11.) The Court will not address the merits of the argument and, instead, rejects it as 25 procedural deficient because Plaintiff—with reasonable diligence—could have presented 26 this argument earlier in the litigation but failed to do so. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see also 27 Martinez v. Ryan, No. CV-05-01561-PHX-ROS, 2021 WL 1947510, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 28 14, 2021) (“A motion for reconsideration will be denied absent a showing of manifest error || orashowing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the Court's 2|| attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” (emphasis added)); Sport Collectors Guild 3|| Inc. v. Bank of Am. NA, No. CV-16-02229-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 8260840, at *3 (D. Ariz. Sept. 14, 2018) (“A motion for reconsideration ‘may not be used to raise arguments or 5 || present evidence for the first time when they reasonably could have been raised earlier in || the litigation.’” (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 7\| 2000))). 8 Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion must be denied because she has not presented newly 9|| discovered evidence, shown that the Court committed clear error in its decision, proven that the district court's decision was manifestly unjust, or show that there was an intervening change in controlling law.' “Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's rulings || does not provide grounds for reconsideration.” Creveling, 2005 WL 8161081, at *1. 13 IV. Conclusion 14 Therefore, 15 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion. (Doc. 52.) 16 Dated this 19th day of April, 2022. 17 18 —_—_> 1 20 Aionorable Susan M. Brnovich =~ United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff's “Supplemental Authority,” (Doc. 57), suffers from the same ailments as her 28 || Motion for Reconsideration and, consequently, the Court will not address it in further detail. -4-