Abdulhussain v. MV Public Transportation Incorporated

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Hameed Abdulhussain, No. CV-22-01458-PHX-SMB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 MV Public Transportation Incorporated,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the Court is Plaintiff Hameed Abdulhussain’s Motion to Reconsider. (Doc. 16 23.) Defendant filed a Response. (Doc. 28.) After reviewing the parties’ arguments and 17 the relevant case law, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for the following reasons. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of this Court’s Order (Doc. 22) for “dismissing his 20 state and federal claims for failing to comply with the CBA.” (Doc. 23 at 1, 4.) As part 21 of his Motion, Plaintiff presents filings at the National Labor Relations Board “that he did 22 not believe were needed based on the allegations made in the Amended Complaint that he 23 in fact attempted to comply with the CBA.” (Id. at 1–2.) Additionally, Plaintiff argues 24 the Court erroneously accepted as fact Defendant’s allegation that Plaintiff failed to 25 comply with the CBA. (Id. at 2.) For these reasons, Plaintiff requests leave to amend his 26 Complaint on these issues. (Id.) 27 II. LEGAL STANDARD 28 Courts will grant motions to reconsider only in rare circumstances. Defs. of 1 Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). This is reiterated in Local 2 Rule 7.2(g)(1), which states: The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order 3 absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal 4 authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Any such motion shall point out with specificity the 5 matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by 6 the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific 7 modifications being sought in the Court’s Order. No motion for 8 reconsideration of an Order may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in 9 the Order. Failure to comply with this subsection may be grounds for the 10 denial of the motion. 11 See also Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th 12 Cir. 1993) (motions for reconsideration are typically denied unless the plaintiff can show 13 newly discovered evidence, the prior Order contained clear legal error or was manifestly 14 unjust, or there has been an intervening change in the law). Manifest error is “error that 15 is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law 16 or the credible evidence in the record.” Estrada v. Bashas’ Inc., No. CV-02-00591-PHX- 17 RCB, 2014 WL 1319189, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 1, 2014) (cleaned up). 18 Motions for reconsideration “should not be used to ask a court “to rethink what the 19 court ha[s] already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Defs. of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. 20 at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 21 (E.D. Va. 1983)). If none of those circumstances apply, a motion to reconsider is only 22 appropriate where the Court has “made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension,” 23 and as a result has “patently misunderstood a party.” Id. (quoting Above the Belt, 99 24 F.R.D. at 101). 25 III. DISCUSSION 26 Like in Norton v. Arpaio, here Plaintiff “fail[s] to state a standard of review for 27 reconsideration in their motion, and more importantly, they fail to meet this high 28 standard.” No. CV-15-00087-PHX-SPL, 2019 WL 4849604, at *1 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 1 2019). First, Plaintiff’s newly attached filings from the National Labor Relations Board 2 (see Ex. A), are facts that could have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier with 3 reasonable diligence. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). As Defendant notes, the documents in 4 Exhibit A are dated February 16, 2022 and December 28, 2022, and Plaintiff or 5 Plaintiff’s counsel appear to be the recipient. (Doc. 28 at 5.) This Court’s Order came 6 out April 21, 2023, and Plaintiff himself alleges he did not present them sooner because 7 “he did not believe [they] were needed based on the allegations made in the Amended 8 Complaint that he in fact attempted to comply with the CBA.” (Doc. 23 at 1–2.) 9 Plaintiff made a strategic decision to not present these readily available 10 documents, and therefore may not present them as newly presented evidence under this 11 Motion. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see also Marquez v. Glendale Union High Sch. Dist., No. 12 CV-16-03351-PHX-JAT, 2018 WL 6418540, at *4 (D. Ariz. Dec. 6, 2018) (denying 13 motion to reconsider in part because plaintiff “did not present any new material facts that 14 happened after the Court’s decision, or which she could not have known of through 15 reasonable diligence at the time of the Court’s decision”); Henry v. City of Somerton, No. 16 CV-18-03058-PHX-DJH, 2022 WL 1265922, at *2 (Apr. 28, 2022) (denying motion for 17 reconsideration in part because plaintiff’s arguments “could have been raised 18 earlier . . . but were not, and so they are not appropriately considered here on 19 reconsideration”). The Court will therefore not consider Exhibit A. 20 Second, Plaintiff argues the Court erroneously accepted as fact that Plaintiff failed 21 to comply with the CBA. Plaintiff, without citation, states that the Court made a finding 22 that Plaintiff “failed to follow the CBA provision.” (Doc. 23 at 1.) That “quoted” 23 language or finding appears nowhere in the Court’s Order. (See Doc. 22.) Rather, the 24 Court found that “resolving the dispute of whether the grievance procedure was properly 25 followed is the job of an arbitrator—not the Court—because as previously discussed, 26 Plaintiff’s claims are subject to the CBA’s grievance and arbitration procedures.” (Id. at 27 8.) Motions to reconsider are not a mechanism to ask the Court to rethink its analysis 28 which it already thought through, and Plaintiff cites no case law demonstrating manifest 1|| error. See Defs. of Wildlife, 909 F. Supp. at 1351. As such, Plaintiff's argument is 2 || unsubstantiated. 3 Next, as Defendant notes, Plaintiff's Motion rehashes the same arguments 4|| previously considered by the Court. (Doc. 28 at 3-5.) Plaintiff continues to argue that he || fulfilled his obligations under the CBA, but the Court has already held that this is a 6 || question for an arbitrator, not the Court. Because Plaintiff cites no case law concerning □□ any manifest error, the Court will not reconsider these arguments as they violate LRCiv || 7.2(g)(1). See also Marquez, 2018 WL 6418540, at *5 (denying motion for 9|| reconsideration because plaintiff “merely repeats arguments she already made—and 10 || which the Court did not find sufficient... in violation of LRCiv 7.2(g)(1)”). Finally, 11} Plaintiff makes no arguments regarding the Court’s finding that his state law 12 || discrimination and retaliation claims are preempted and time-barred. IV. CONCLUSION 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider. (Doc. 23.) 16 Dated this 8th day of June, 2023. 17 18 — . RP 19 SO 20 Gated States District ludge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-_4-