Castro v. C&C Verde LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 9, 2023
• Docket: 2:18-cv-04715
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Patrick Castro, No. CV-18-04715-PHX-JZB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 C&C Verde LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Vacating the 16 Default Judgments Against Christopher Conforti and C&C Verde, LLC. (Doc. 51). 17 I. Background 18 On December 7, 2022, this Court issued an Order adopting in part and declining to 19 adopt in part the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 46). That Order 20 set aside the entries of default and default judgment as to Defendant Nicholas Conforti and 21 vacated the default judgments—but not the entries of default themselves—against 22 remaining Defendants Christopher Conforti and C&C Verde, LLC. (Id. at 10). The Court 23 set aside the default judgments as to Nicholas and C&C Verde because there remained a 24 joint and severally liable Defendant as to whom the matter had not yet been adjudicated: 25 Nicholas Conforti. (Id. at 9). 26 Later that same day, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice, Defendant 27 Nicholas Conforti. (Doc. 47). On December 8, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion for 28 Evidentiary Hearing on Damages, which remains pending. (Doc. 49). 1 On December 19, Plaintiff submitted his Motion to Reconsider, asking the Court to 2|| reconsider vacating the default judgments against Christopher and C&C Verde. (Doc. 51). 3|| Il. Discussion 4 District courts maintain discretion to reconsider rulings only where there is good || cause to do so. See, e.g., Norris v. Shenzhen IVPS Tech. Co. Ltd., No. CV-20-01212-PHX- DWL, 2022 WL 17537984, at *1 (D. Ariz. Dec. 8, 2022). The Local Rules of this Court 7\|| provide that such good cause consists of either “manifest error or a showing of new facts 8 || or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable 9|| diligence.” LRCiv. 7.2(g)(1). 10 The Local Rules also provide that the nonmoving party may not file a response 11 || unless ordered by the Court, but no motion for reconsideration may be granted unless the 12 || Court provides an opportunity for response. LRCiv. 7.2(g)(2). 13 Because Plaintiff’s arguments appear to have some merit, the Court will allow Defendants to file a response. 15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Christopher Conforti and C&C 17|| Verde, LLC may file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (Doc. 51) no later than || January 24, 2023. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Defendants file a timely response, Plaintiff shall have seven days after service of the response to file a reply, if he so desires. 21 Dated this 9th day of January, 2023. 22 23 — Lil nora ah Beene Hdhorable Stephen M. McNamee 24 Senior United States District Judge 25 26 27 28

_2-