Jungblut v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District

Opinion

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

9 Christina Jungblut, No. CV-19-05837-PHX-DLR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal 17 (Doc. 34) and motion for reconsideration (Doc. 37), and the subsequent correction to that 18 motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38). The court also notes that Defendant responded to 19 the motion for extension of time and asked the Court to strike exhibits attached to that 20 motion. (Doc. 36.) The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time but denies 21 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and Defendant’s request to strike. 22 First, the motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal. In civil cases, the 23 notice of appeal “must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the entry of the 24 judgment or the order appealed from,” except in specific circumstances not applicable here. 25 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). “The district court may extend the time to file a notice of 26 appeal if: (1) the party seeking the extension files his motion for an extension of time no 27 later than 30 days after the expiration of the original appeal period, and (2) the moving 28 party shows ‘excusable neglect or good cause’ for not filing a notice of appeal within the 1 original appeal period.” Walls v. Indus. Comm'n of Arizona, 12 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 1993) 2 (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)). 3 Here, Plaintiff filed the motion for extension of time on February 10, 2022, less than 4 30 days after final judgment was entered. Plaintiff seeks an extension because one of her 5 family members was diagnosed with a painful terminal illness and she must provide daily 6 care. (Doc. 34.) This is good cause and justifies an extension of the deadline to file a 7 notice of appeal to April 20, 2022. 8 Second, Defendant asks the Court to strike exhibits attached to the motion for 9 extension of time. Motions to strike are disfavored and are generally not granted unless 10 the moving party can show prejudice. Mag Instrument, Inc. v. JS Prod., Inc., 595 F. Supp. 11 2d 1102, 1106 (C.D. Cal. 2008); see also 5C Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal 12 Practice and Procedure § 1381 n.34 (3d ed. 2019) (collecting cases). Defendant makes no 13 showing of prejudice. 14 Lastly, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January 20, 2022 order. 15 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of 16 Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for 17 reconsideration ordinarily will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing 18 of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with 19 reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g). Further, the motion must “point out with specificity 20 the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any 21 new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they 22 were not presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Court's 23 Order.” Id. Finally, “[n]o motion for reconsideration . . . may repeat any oral or written 24 argument made by the movant in support of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in 25 the Order.” Id. The court may deny a motion for reconsideration if it fails to comply with 26 these rules. Id. 27 Here, Plaintiff has neither made a showing of manifest error nor presented the Court 28 with new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier 1 || with reasonable diligence. Rather, Plaintiff rehashes arguments that the Court previously □□ considered and rejected. (Doc. 37.) Plaintiff’s mere disagreement with the Court’s prior || order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. 4|| Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file a notice of || appeal (Doc. 34) is GRANTED. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended to 7\| April 20, 2022. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration 9|| (Doc. 37) and Defendant’s request to strike (Doc. 36) are DENIED. 10 Dated this 13th day of March, 2022. 11 12 13 , {Z, 14 _- {UO 15 Usted States Dictric Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-