- 1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jeremy Guernsey, No. CV-21-00848-PHX-DJH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Elko Wire Rope Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Vacate Order Granting Partial Summary 16 Judgment on Count One” (Doc. 86), filed on September 18, 2023. Invoking Federal Rule 17 of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 59(e),1 Plaintiff asks the Court to vacate its August 21, 2023, 18 Order (Doc. 82) (the “August 21 Order”) granting Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary 19 Judgment on Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful discharge and to reinstate the claim (“August 20 21 Order”). (See Doc. 86). The Motion will be summarily denied.2 21 I. Legal Standards 22 Plaintiff seeks vacation of the Court’s August 21 Order under Rules 54(b) and 59(e). 23 Rule 54(b) allows courts to revise “any order or other form of decision, however 24 designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the right and liabilities of fewer 25 1 Unless where otherwise noted, all Rule references are to the Federal Rules of Civil 26 Procedure. 27 2 The Court denies the Motion without briefing. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) (“No response to a motion for reconsideration and no reply to the response may be filed unless ordered by the 28 Court, but no motion for reconsideration may be granted unless the Court provides an opportunity for response.”). 1 than all the parties . . . before the entry of judgment . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Caselaw 2 generally recognizes that a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a judgment3 may be granted 3 in four circumstances: when necessary (1) to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon 4 which the judgment rests; (2) to present newly discovered or previously unavailable 5 evidence; (3) to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if the amendment is justified by an 6 intervening change in controlling law. Allstate Ins. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th 7 Cir. 2011). Rule 59(e) may not, however, “be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise 8 arguments or present evidence that could have been made prior to the entry of judgment.” 9 Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008) (citation omitted); see also 10 Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that Rule 11 59(e) offers an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 12 conservation of judicial resources”) (internal quotation omitted); Bollenbacher v. Comm’r 13 of Soc. Sec., 621 F. Supp. 2d 497, 501 (N.D. Ohio 2008) (stating that a Rule 59(e) “motion 14 is not a substitute for appeal and does not allow the unhappy litigant to reargue the case”). 15 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare 16 circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). 17 Such motions should not be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to rethink what the 18 court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.’” Id. (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. 19 v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). Indeed, Local Rule 20 7.2(g) provides that “[t]he Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an 21 Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that 22 could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable 23 diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g). 24 “Absent good cause shown, any motion for reconsideration shall be filed no later 25 than fourteen (14) days after the date of the filing of the Order that is the subject of the 26 motion.” Id. The good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party filing 27 3 Though the Court granted partial summary judgment to Defendants on Plaintiff’s 28 wrongful discharge claim, Rule 54(b) judgment was not entered at that time. (Doc. 82 at 8). Accordingly, no judgment has yet to be entered on the claim. 1 the untimely motion. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th 2 Cir. 1992). 3 II. Discussion 4 Plaintiff’s Motion is both untimely and without merit and will be denied. 5 First, Plaintiff filed the Motion on September 19, 2023, which is more than 14 days 6 after the Court’s August 21 Order. The Motion is therefore untimely under Local Rule 7 7.2(g). Plaintiff does not show good cause or otherwise provide any reason for the untimely 8 filing. 9 Second, even if the Court were to excuse Plaintiff’s untimeliness, Plaintiff’s Motion 10 is meritless because he fails to articulate any circumstance that would support vacating the 11 August 21 Order. See Herron, 634 F.3d at 1111. Plaintiff relies on the same facts and 12 arguments he made or could have made in his Response to the Motion for Summary 13 Judgment, which is not a valid reason for the Court to reconsider its August 21 Order. 14 (Compare Doc. 77 with Doc. 86). See LRCiv 7.2(g)(1) (“No motion for reconsideration 15 of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or 16 in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order”); Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890 17 (A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for 18 the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”). A 19 mere disagreement with the August 21 Order is an insufficient basis for 20 reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 21 1988). Moreover, the recently decided California case law cited by Plaintiff is not 22 controlling law and does not change the Court’s analysis of the Arizona statutes at issue in 23 this matter. (See Doc. 86 at 7–8 citing People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc., 529 24 P. 3d 49 (Cal. 2023)). 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs “Motion to Vacate Order Granting Partial || Summary Judgment on Count One” (Doc. 86) is denied. 4 Dated this 18th day of September, 2023. 5 6 Do ee 7 norable'Diang/4. Hurfetewa 8 United States District Fudge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:21-cv-00848
Filed Date: 9/20/2023
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/19/2024