1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Oliver Complot, et al., No. CV-23-02684-PHX-DJH
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 Absolute Resolutions Investments LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration 16 (Doc. 31). Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court’s June 13, 2024, Order dismissing 17 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 30). Therein, the Court found that 18 res judicata precluded the FAC’s claims and denied Plaintiffs’ request to amend. (Id.) 19 Plaintiffs argue the Court’s decision was error because the alleged misrepresentations in 20 the FAC arose after dismissal of the earlier suit and thus could not be subject to res 21 judicata. (Doc. 31 at 1). 22 The Court will deny the Motion for Reconsideration. 23 I. Background 24 Though detailed in its June Order, the Court briefly restates the facts relevant to 25 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration here. 26 The State Collection Action. On April 14, 2023, Absolute Resolutions 27 Investments LLC (“ARI”), a debt collector company, filed suit against Plaintiffs in 28 Maricopa County Superior Court for the collection of a $64,296.38 household private 1 student loan (“State Collection Action”). (See Complaint, Absolute Resolutions 2 Investments, LLC v. Tolamaa et al, CV 2023-005777 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct. April 3 14, 2023) at Doc. 16 at 57–60). Therein, ARI alleged that Plaintiffs defaulted on the 4 student loan and sought payment of the principal, interest, court costs, and other relief as 5 the court may deem just and equitable. (Id.) The State Collection Action remains pending 6 before Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky. 7 Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit. On September 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit 8 against ARI, Johnson Mark LLC, Rhett Flaming-Buschman, Johnathan D. Anderson, 9 Butch Johnson, Wade Price, Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky, the State of Arizona, 10 and other court officers involved in the State Collection Action (“Federal Lawsuit”). 11 Complot v. Absolute Resolution Investments LLC et al, No. 2:23-cv-01945-DWL (D. 12 Ariz. Sept. 18, 2023). Plaintiff Complot alleged in the Federal Lawsuit that ARI and its 13 counsel “failed to provide any verifiable admissible evidence” to support its claim in the 14 State Collection Action and thus committed “abuse of process and mov[ed] a fraudulent 15 claim upon the court.” Federal Lawsuit, ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff Complot further stated 16 that Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky “ignored and failed to acknowledge [his] 17 request” to discipline AR[I] and its counsel[.]” Id. The first Federal Lawsuit was based on 18 Plaintiff Complot’s claims for “obstruction of Justice 18 U.S.C. § 1503, due process and 19 fairness violations, misfeasance, malfeasance, negligence, attorney and judge 20 misconduct, abuse of process, 18 U.S.C.[§] 242 and a whole host of other violations.” Id. 21 at 3. For relief, Plaintiff Complot sought “disbarment of all the attorneys employed by 22 Johnson Mark LLC,” “compensatory damages from [ARI] in the amount of $2,500,000 23 million dollars [sic] along with punitive damages,” “compensation from the State of 24 Arizona in the amount of $2,000,000 million dollars [sic] for its negligence in placing 25 [Judge] Astrowsky in office,” and “disciplinary action against [Judge Astrowsky] and 26 every officer involved in the case CV20235777.” Id. at 4. On October 13, 2023, United 27 States District Judge Dominic W. Lanza sua sponte dismissed the Federal Lawsuit 28 without leave to amend. See generally Federal Lawsuit, ECF No. 10. Plaintiff initiated 1 the present action five days later. (See Doc. 1-2). 2 Plaintiff’s Second Lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ second lawsuit, filed on October 17, 2023, 3 was initiated in Maricopa County Superior Court against Defendants ARI, Johnson Mark 4 LLC, Rhett Flaming-Buschman, Johnathan D. Anderson, Butch Johnson, and Wade 5 Price, and subsequently removed to this Court.1 (Doc. 1). In their FAC, Plaintiffs allege 6 that Defendants tendered false and misleading forms—including requests for admission, 7 a disclosure statement, chain of title documents, a billing statements, and a “ChargeOffs 8 Placement” file—to them during the State Collection Action. (See id. at ¶¶ 4, 10, 11–14, 9 52–56, 84–87, 116–21, 156–74). They allege that they relied on these false and/or 10 misleading forms “to make informed decisions and decide how to make proper defense.” 11 (Id. at ¶¶ 29, 68, 99, 133, 186). They also alleged that Defendants presented the 12 documents “in a manner which intended to cause the [Plaintiffs] to make poor decisions” 13 when defending against the State Collection Action. (Id. at ¶¶ 15, 29, 36, 43, 68, 99, 133, 14 186). (Doc. 30 at 5). Plaintiffs’ position, among others, is that ARI, the Individual 15 Defendants, and Defendant Johnson Mark LLC negligently produced documents 16 containing fraudulent, incorrect, or incomplete information as “oppressive tactics” during 17 the course of litigation to mislead and “prevent Plaintiffs from obtaining correct material” 18 to support their claims. 19 Defendant ARI moved to dismiss the FAC, contending the claims were barred by 20 res judicata and that the FAC failed to plead any plausible claim for relief. (Doc. 18). 21 The Court agreed that the claims were precluded by res judicata. It did not assess 22 whether the FAC stated plausible claims for relief. (Doc. 30). The Court then dismissed 23 the FAC without leave to amend. (Id.) 24 On June 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 31). 25 The Court did not order a response and thus none was filed. See L.R.Civ. 7.2(g)(2) (“No 26 response to a motion for reconsideration . . . may be filed unless ordered by the Court[.]”) 27 1 Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Absolute Resolutions Corporation, ARC Holdings, 28 LLC, Arcon Credit Solutions, LLC, Christopher Winkle, and Robert Johnson from the second lawsuit. 1 II. Discussion 2 Motions for Reconsideration are to be granted only in rare circumstances, and the 3 Court “will ordinarily deny” such a motion. L.R. Civ. 7.2(g)(1); Defenders of Wildlife v. 4 Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Motions for reconsideration should 5 not be used to ask a court to “‘rethink what the court had already thought through— 6 rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, 7 Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). 8 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 9 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 10 unjust, (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1 J, 11 Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In addition to 12 complying with LR Civ. 7.2(g)(1), a party moving for reconsideration must take into 13 account the narrow scope of such a motion. “[D]issatisfaction or disagreement is not a 14 proper basis for reconsideration [.]” Ellsworth v. Prison Health Services Inc., 2013 WL 15 1149937, at *2 (D. Ariz. March 20, 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations 16 omitted). 17 Without specifying, Plaintiffs say that “[t]he Court unfortunately failed to properly 18 consider material facts that were presented to the Court before the Court’s decision.” 19 (Doc. 31 at 1). Plaintiffs say they received “a package of documents” after their Federal 20 Lawsuit was dismissed in October 2023, and the alleged misrepresentations in those 21 documents are the bases for “a new cause of action that could not be pleaded or barred by 22 res judicata.” (Id. at 1).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Oliver Complot, et al., No. CV-23-02684-PHX-DJH
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 Absolute Resolutions Investments LLC, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration 16 (Doc. 31). Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court’s June 13, 2024, Order dismissing 17 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (Doc. 30). Therein, the Court found that 18 res judicata precluded the FAC’s claims and denied Plaintiffs’ request to amend. (Id.) 19 Plaintiffs argue the Court’s decision was error because the alleged misrepresentations in 20 the FAC arose after dismissal of the earlier suit and thus could not be subject to res 21 judicata. (Doc. 31 at 1). 22 The Court will deny the Motion for Reconsideration. 23 I. Background 24 Though detailed in its June Order, the Court briefly restates the facts relevant to 25 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration here. 26 The State Collection Action. On April 14, 2023, Absolute Resolutions 27 Investments LLC (“ARI”), a debt collector company, filed suit against Plaintiffs in 28 Maricopa County Superior Court for the collection of a $64,296.38 household private 1 student loan (“State Collection Action”). (See Complaint, Absolute Resolutions 2 Investments, LLC v. Tolamaa et al, CV 2023-005777 (Maricopa Cnty. Super. Ct. April 3 14, 2023) at Doc. 16 at 57–60). Therein, ARI alleged that Plaintiffs defaulted on the 4 student loan and sought payment of the principal, interest, court costs, and other relief as 5 the court may deem just and equitable. (Id.) The State Collection Action remains pending 6 before Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky. 7 Plaintiff’s First Lawsuit. On September 18, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a federal lawsuit 8 against ARI, Johnson Mark LLC, Rhett Flaming-Buschman, Johnathan D. Anderson, 9 Butch Johnson, Wade Price, Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky, the State of Arizona, 10 and other court officers involved in the State Collection Action (“Federal Lawsuit”). 11 Complot v. Absolute Resolution Investments LLC et al, No. 2:23-cv-01945-DWL (D. 12 Ariz. Sept. 18, 2023). Plaintiff Complot alleged in the Federal Lawsuit that ARI and its 13 counsel “failed to provide any verifiable admissible evidence” to support its claim in the 14 State Collection Action and thus committed “abuse of process and mov[ed] a fraudulent 15 claim upon the court.” Federal Lawsuit, ECF No. 1 at 2. Plaintiff Complot further stated 16 that Superior Court Judge Brad Astrowsky “ignored and failed to acknowledge [his] 17 request” to discipline AR[I] and its counsel[.]” Id. The first Federal Lawsuit was based on 18 Plaintiff Complot’s claims for “obstruction of Justice 18 U.S.C. § 1503, due process and 19 fairness violations, misfeasance, malfeasance, negligence, attorney and judge 20 misconduct, abuse of process, 18 U.S.C.[§] 242 and a whole host of other violations.” Id. 21 at 3. For relief, Plaintiff Complot sought “disbarment of all the attorneys employed by 22 Johnson Mark LLC,” “compensatory damages from [ARI] in the amount of $2,500,000 23 million dollars [sic] along with punitive damages,” “compensation from the State of 24 Arizona in the amount of $2,000,000 million dollars [sic] for its negligence in placing 25 [Judge] Astrowsky in office,” and “disciplinary action against [Judge Astrowsky] and 26 every officer involved in the case CV20235777.” Id. at 4. On October 13, 2023, United 27 States District Judge Dominic W. Lanza sua sponte dismissed the Federal Lawsuit 28 without leave to amend. See generally Federal Lawsuit, ECF No. 10. Plaintiff initiated 1 the present action five days later. (See Doc. 1-2). 2 Plaintiff’s Second Lawsuit. Plaintiffs’ second lawsuit, filed on October 17, 2023, 3 was initiated in Maricopa County Superior Court against Defendants ARI, Johnson Mark 4 LLC, Rhett Flaming-Buschman, Johnathan D. Anderson, Butch Johnson, and Wade 5 Price, and subsequently removed to this Court.1 (Doc. 1). In their FAC, Plaintiffs allege 6 that Defendants tendered false and misleading forms—including requests for admission, 7 a disclosure statement, chain of title documents, a billing statements, and a “ChargeOffs 8 Placement” file—to them during the State Collection Action. (See id. at ¶¶ 4, 10, 11–14, 9 52–56, 84–87, 116–21, 156–74). They allege that they relied on these false and/or 10 misleading forms “to make informed decisions and decide how to make proper defense.” 11 (Id. at ¶¶ 29, 68, 99, 133, 186). They also alleged that Defendants presented the 12 documents “in a manner which intended to cause the [Plaintiffs] to make poor decisions” 13 when defending against the State Collection Action. (Id. at ¶¶ 15, 29, 36, 43, 68, 99, 133, 14 186). (Doc. 30 at 5). Plaintiffs’ position, among others, is that ARI, the Individual 15 Defendants, and Defendant Johnson Mark LLC negligently produced documents 16 containing fraudulent, incorrect, or incomplete information as “oppressive tactics” during 17 the course of litigation to mislead and “prevent Plaintiffs from obtaining correct material” 18 to support their claims. 19 Defendant ARI moved to dismiss the FAC, contending the claims were barred by 20 res judicata and that the FAC failed to plead any plausible claim for relief. (Doc. 18). 21 The Court agreed that the claims were precluded by res judicata. It did not assess 22 whether the FAC stated plausible claims for relief. (Doc. 30). The Court then dismissed 23 the FAC without leave to amend. (Id.) 24 On June 26, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. 31). 25 The Court did not order a response and thus none was filed. See L.R.Civ. 7.2(g)(2) (“No 26 response to a motion for reconsideration . . . may be filed unless ordered by the Court[.]”) 27 1 Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Absolute Resolutions Corporation, ARC Holdings, 28 LLC, Arcon Credit Solutions, LLC, Christopher Winkle, and Robert Johnson from the second lawsuit. 1 II. Discussion 2 Motions for Reconsideration are to be granted only in rare circumstances, and the 3 Court “will ordinarily deny” such a motion. L.R. Civ. 7.2(g)(1); Defenders of Wildlife v. 4 Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Motions for reconsideration should 5 not be used to ask a court to “‘rethink what the court had already thought through— 6 rightly or wrongly.’” Defenders of Wildlife, 909 F.Supp. at 1351 (quoting Above the Belt, 7 Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). 8 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 9 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 10 unjust, (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1 J, 11 Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In addition to 12 complying with LR Civ. 7.2(g)(1), a party moving for reconsideration must take into 13 account the narrow scope of such a motion. “[D]issatisfaction or disagreement is not a 14 proper basis for reconsideration [.]” Ellsworth v. Prison Health Services Inc., 2013 WL 15 1149937, at *2 (D. Ariz. March 20, 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations 16 omitted). 17 Without specifying, Plaintiffs say that “[t]he Court unfortunately failed to properly 18 consider material facts that were presented to the Court before the Court’s decision.” 19 (Doc. 31 at 1). Plaintiffs say they received “a package of documents” after their Federal 20 Lawsuit was dismissed in October 2023, and the alleged misrepresentations in those 21 documents are the bases for “a new cause of action that could not be pleaded or barred by 22 res judicata.” (Id. at 1). Plaintiffs state they “made mention of these new documents and 23 the fact that new wrongs defeat res judicata and the court should have given them more 24 weight in its decision to ensure complete justice.” (Id.) 25 In their Response to ARI’s Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff made the same argument. 26 Specifically, they argued that their receipt of additional forms, exchanged as part of 27 discovery in this action, “constitutes a new event and set of facts that could not have been 28 pleaded or raised in a prior action” and so “it seems impossible for the [FAC] to . . . arise || from the same transactional nucleus of facts” as the Federal Lawsuit. (Doc. 20 at 2-3). 2|| The Court rejected this position as “misguided,” and explained that “the allegations || underlying [the] present action [are] about the forms exchanged during litigation in the State Collection Action. The crux of the present action is not about forms exchanged 5 || during ongoing litigation.” (Doc. 30 at n.13). Nothing in the Ninth Circuit case law cited 6|| by Plaintiffs, which is neither new nor intervening, suggests that this finding was clear error. 8 Because Plaintiffs have not satisfied their burden for the Court to grant a Motion 9|| for Reconsideration, it is denied. 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 31). 12 Dated this 4th day of December, 2024. 13 14 oC. . pga □□ 15 norable'Diang4. Humfetewa 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
_5-