Madsen v. City of Phoenix ( 2023 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Christina M Madsen, No. CV-19-03182-PHX-GMS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 City of Phoenix, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Christina Madsen’s(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Reconsider 16 and Vacate the Court’s Order Granting the City of Phoenix’s Motion for a New Trial 17 (Second Motion to Reconsider) (Doc. 386). For the reasons detailed below, the Motion is 18 denied. 19 BACKGROUND 20 This case concerns Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim against the City of 21 Phoenix (“Defendant”). In April 2022, this Court held a four-day jury trial. The jury 22 rendered a verdict for the Plaintiff. After trial, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion for 23 Judgment as a Matter of Law and granted its subsequent Motion for a New Trial. (Doc. 24 340). On March 2, 2023, Plaintiff moved for this Court to reconsider its order for a new 25 trial. On August 16, 2023, the Court denied that motion. 26 The second trial commenced on October 24, 2023. On November 1, 2023, the Court 27 declared a mistrial resulting from the jury’s inability to come to a unanimous decision. 28 Facing a third trial, Plaintiff has moved a second time for the Court to reconsider its earlier 1 order for a new trial. 2 DISCUSSION 3 I. Legal Standard 4 Under Local Rule 7.2(g), a motion for reconsideration should ordinarily be denied 5 “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could 6 not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” L.R. Civ. 7.2(g); 7 see also School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 8 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that granting a motion for reconsideration is appropriate where 9 “the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 10 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change 11 in controlling law”). Moreover, “[n]o motion for reconsideration of an Order may repeat 12 any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the 13 motion that resulted in the Order.” L.R. Civ. 7.2(g)(1). Thus, “[m]ere disagreement with 14 a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.” Adame v. City of Surprise, 15 No. CV-17-03200, 2018 WL 3496955, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 20, 2018). 16 II. Motion to Reconsider New Trial Order 17 Plaintiff’s Motion is denied because it neither demonstrates manifest error nor 18 shows relevant new facts or legal authority not available at the first trial. Plaintiff argues 19 that new law, Sharp v. S&S Activewear, L.L.C., 69 F.4th 974 (9th Cir. 2023), fundamentally 20 changes the Court’s analysis in its order for a new trial. Plaintiff’s reliance on Sharp is 21 misplaced. Sharp involved whether offensive conduct when directed toward both men and 22 women constitutes sexual harassment under Title VII. 69 F.4th at 982. This Court ordered 23 a new trial based on the timeline presented at the first trial—namely, that under that 24 timeline the great weight of the evidence indicated the Defendant adequately responded 25 within a reasonable time. (Doc. 340 at 10). Accordingly, the Sharp decision does not 26 change the great weight of the evidence presented in the first trial. 27 Plaintiff also moves for reconsideration based on new facts. First, Plaintiff points 28 to the deadlocked jury as new facts warranting reconsideration. (Doc. 386 at 4–5). The 1 || outcome of the second trial does not change the weight of the evidence presented at the 2|| first trial and is not grounds for reconsideration. Second, Plaintiff argues that the record of 3 || the second trial should be used to sustain the verdict of the first trial. The local rules allow 4|| this Court to consider facts “that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 5 || reasonable diligence.” L.R. Civ. 7.2(g). While the evidence in the second trial differs from that in the first, there is no indication that evidence was unavailable in the first trial. 7\| Accordingly, the Court does not find the second trial’s record to be sufficient grounds for 8 || reconsideration. 9 For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is denied. 10 CONCLUSION 11 Accordingly, 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider and Vacate 13 || the Court’s Order Granting the City of Phoenix’s Motion for a New Trial (Second Motion 14|| to Reconsider) (Doc. 386) is DENIED. 15 Dated this 30th day of November, 2023. 16 - 7 A Whacrsay Sooo) 18 Chief United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-