Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated
Opinion
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9 Albert L Jacobs, Jr., et al., No. CV-20-01752-PHX-DLR
10 Plaintiffs, ORDER
11 v.
12 Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated, et al.,
13 Defendants. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 17 11, 2021 order. (Doc. 59.) Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare 18 circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). 19 A motion for reconsideration ordinarily will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error 20 or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention 21 earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g). Further, the motion must “point out with 22 specificity the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the 23 Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the 24 reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the 25 Court’s Order.” Id. Finally, “[n]o motion for reconsideration . . . may repeat any oral or 26 written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that 27 resulted in the Order.” Id. The court may deny a motion for reconsideration if it fails to 28 comply with these rules. Id. 1 Here, Plaintiffs have neither made a showing of manifest error nor presented the || Court with new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention || earlier with reasonable diligence. Rather, Plaintiffs repeat arguments—mostly word-for- word—that the Court previously considered and rejected. Plaintiffs’ mere disagreement 5 || with the Court’s prior order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton 6|| Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 59) is DENIED. 8 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2021. 9 10 ll {Z, 12 _- {UO 13 Upited States Dictic Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
_2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated (Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.