Adam Bernard Sernas v. Unknown Cantrell, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 24, 2025
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00730
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Adam Bernard Sernas, No. CV-19-00730-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Unknown Cantrell, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendants Cotrell and 16 Collars (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 150). Defendants ask the Court to reconsider 17 its denial of their Motion in Limine regarding Adam Sernas’ (“Plaintiff”) 2018 medical 18 bills. (Docs. 130 & 145). Plaintiff has filed a Response opposing the Motion. (Doc. 152). 19 I. Legal Standard 20 District courts have discretion to reconsider prior orders. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 21 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003); Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 22 1994). However, reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy” that is available only in 23 “highly unusual circumstances.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 24 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 25 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (circumstances justifying reconsideration are rare). Motions for 26 reconsideration are ordinarily denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of 27 new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 28 reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). They are generally “disfavored . . . and are not 1 the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs.” 2 Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mechanical Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D. Ariz. 3 2003); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). 4 II. Discussion 5 On June 3, 2025, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion in Limine seeking to 6 preclude Plaintiff from presenting evidence or witnesses for medical bills incurred before 7 his release from prison. (Docs. 130 & 145). In that same Motion, Defendants also argued 8 that the collateral source rule prevented Plaintiff from pressing forward with his damages 9 claim because the State, not a collateral source, was responsible for paying Plaintiff’s 10 medical expenses. (Doc. 130). The Court denied the Motion, finding that AHCCCS, a 11 third-party government payor, paid Plaintiff’s expenses, enabling Plaintiff to pursue 12 damages against Defendants to satisfy the AHCCCS lien. Now, in their Motion for 13 Reconsideration, Defendants say that ADCRR has paid in full for Plaintiff’s 2018 14 medical bills, alleviating the need for Plaintiff to reimburse AHCCCS, because ADCRR 15 has satisfied the lien placed by AHCCCS on Plaintiff’s recovery. (Doc. 150 at 2). 16 Because the lien is now discharged, Defendants argue that the collateral source rule no 17 longer applies as “ADCRR is not a collateral source; is the tortfeasor.” (Id. at 3). If the 18 Court denies the Motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s theory of damages should be 19 confined to the value of the lien, and not the total value of his medical bills. (Id. at 4). 20 Defendants also ask for the opportunity to obtain experts to opine on the reasonableness 21 of Plaintiff’s medical bills. (Id. at 4–5). Should the Court not allow them to obtain 22 experts, they ask that in the spirit of fairness, they be allowed to present payment of the 23 lien by ADCRR. (Id. at 5). 24 A. Defendants’ Payment of the Lien 25 Defendants cite to their payment of the AHCCCS lien as enough reason for the 26 Court to grant their Motion. Defendants present the Court with a legal quagmire that is 27 entirely their own making. Had Defendants not paid the lien, there would be no basis for 28 the Motion for Reconsideration. Having stated so, however, the Court believes that 1 ADCRR’s September 25, 202,5 payment of the AHCCCS lien falls within the limited 2 parameters for which a motion for reconsideration can be granted. In fact, a granting of 3 such a motion is unjustified “[a]bsent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new 4 facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 5 reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). The Court finds that ADCRR’s payment of the 6 AHCCCS lien is a new fact that justifies granting the Motion. School Dist. No. 1J, 7 Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Because the lien 8 was paid by the tortfeasor, ADCRR, and not a third-party collateral source, the payment 9 of the lien, and the payment amount of $21,277.25 is excluded from being presented as 10 evidence of Plaintiff’s damages. See Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 129 P.3d 487 (Ct. 11 App. 2006); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920(A)(1) (payments made by tortfeasors 12 are credited against the tort liability). 13 B. Entirety of Plaintiff’s Medical Bills 14 To circumvent the Court’s ruling that Plaintiff can present evidence of his 2018 15 medical bills, Defendants ask the Court to exclude the entirely of Plaintiff’s medical bills 16 and confine Plaintiff’s recovery to only the amount of the lien. (Doc. 150 at 4). This new 17 legal argument cannot be used to support a motion for reconsideration. Kona Enterprises, 18 Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F .3d 877 (9th Cir.2000) (“A [motion for reconsideration] 19 may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could 20 reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”). Defendants admit that “The 21 Court’s ruling at Doc. 145 was silent on the issue of whether Plaintiff could present the 22 total value of the medical bills or the value of the lien.” (Doc. 150 at 4). If the Court’s 23 Order was silent on this issue, as Defendants note, it is because it was not placed before 24 it. So, the Defendants should not bring it to the Court’s attention on a Motion for 25 Reconsideration, because a motion for reconsideration is not the proper avenue to raise a 26 new legal argument for the first time. Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. The Court will 27 not confine Plaintiff’s damages theory to the value of the lien at this time. 28 1 C. Defendants’ Request for Expert Rebuttal 2 Defendants also request an expert to opine on the reasonableness of the medical □□ bills incurred by Plaintiff. (Doc. 150 at 5). Again, the Court reiterates that only three 4|| things can be argued on a Motion for Reconsideration: (1) newly discovered evidence; 5|| (2) clear error or; (3) intervening change in law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. || ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A request for a rebuttal expert does not 7\|| fall into any of the listed categories. Not only that, but the time to make such a request in 8 || general, has passed. See F.R.C.P. 37(c)(1) (requiring that the failure to identify or provide 9|| information about a witness in a timely manner, exclude the witness, unless the failure is 10 || substantially justified or harmless). Therefore, the Court will not grant Defendants’ 11 |} request for a rebuttal expert on this Motion for Reconsideration. 12 Accordingly, 13 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is granted in 14|| part and denied in part. It is granted to exclude mention of the amount in medical bills, $21,277.25, paid for by ADCRR on the AHCCCS lien, at least to show □□□□□□□□□□□ entitlement to damages. It is denied as to the request to confine Plaintiffs damages || solely to the amount of the lien and Defendants’ request to obtain expert rebuttal 18 || witnesses for the issue of damages, is also denied. 19 Dated this 24th day of November, 2025. 20

22 norable’Dian¢g4. Hurietewa 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

-4-