Jacobs v. Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated

Opinion

WO

Albert L Jacobs, Jr., et al., No. CV-20-01752-PHX-DLR

Plaintiffs, ORDER

v.

Wheaton Van Lines Incorporated, et al.,

Defendants. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s February 11, 2021 order. (Doc. 59.) Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration ordinarily will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g). Further, the motion must “point out with specificity the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by 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 modifications being sought in the Court’s Order.” Id. Finally, “[n]o motion for reconsideration . . . may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order.” Id. The court may deny a motion for reconsideration if it fails to 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 with the Court’s prior order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. 59) is DENIED. Dated this 23rd day of February, 2021. ll {Z, _- {UO Upited States Dictic Judge

_2-