Santa Fe Gold Corporation v. Sanders

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 27, 2022
Docket4:21-cv-00373
StatusUnknown

This text of Santa Fe Gold Corporation v. Sanders (Santa Fe Gold Corporation v. Sanders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Santa Fe Gold Corporation v. Sanders, (D. Ariz. 2022).

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Santa Fe Gold Corp., et al., No. CV-21-0373-TUC-BGM

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Sanders, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Douglas Murray Sanders’s 15 Motion to Set Aside Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Exhibits (Doc. 18). 16 Defendant Sanders seeks relief from the Court’s November 19, 2021, Order (Doc. 16) 17 remanding this matter to the Pima County Superior Court. See Def.’s Mot. to Set Aside 18 (Doc. 18). The Court will consider Defendant’s motion as one for reconsideration. 19 “The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration of an Order absent a 20 showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have 21 been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv. 7.2(g). 22 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly 23 discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 24 unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J, 25 Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations 26 omitted); see also Bahrs v. Hughes Aricraft Co., 795 F.Supp. 965, 967 (D. Ariz. 1992). 27 Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides for reconsideration where one or 28 more of the following is shown: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 1 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been 2 discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud by the adverse 3 party; (4) voiding of the judgment; (5) satisfaction of the judgment; and (6) any other 4 reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 5 at 1263. Subparagraph (6) requires a showing that the grounds justifying relief are 6 extraordinary. See Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 7 (9th Cir. 1981). 8 “A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask a court ‘to rethink what 9 the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly[.]’” Defenders of Wildlife v. 10 Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel 11 Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). “Arguments that a court 12 was in error on the issues it considered should be directed to the court of appeals.” Id. 13 Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present 14 evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the 15 litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 16 Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of 17 or in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 18 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an 19 insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 20 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). 21 Having reviewed the motion to reconsider and the record in this case, the Court 22 finds no basis to depart from its original decision. Defendant has not presented any 23 evidence to support reconsideration of the Court’s remand order. As the Court previously 24 observed, “[t]he jurisdictional amount in controversy is what Plaintiffs’ claims are worth, 25 not speculation regarding the value of claims Defendant might have against non-parties.” 26 Order 11/19/2021 (Doc. 16) at 3. 27 . . . 28 . . . 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside 2 Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); Exhibits (Doc. 18) is DENIED. 3 Dated this 26th day of January, 2022. : uy Ded 5 Honorable Bruce G. Macdonald ‘ United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Corgain
5 F.3d 5 (First Circuit, 1993)
Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner
909 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Arizona, 1995)
Howze v. Adams
689 F. Supp. 20 (District of Columbia, 1988)
Bahrs v. Hughes Aircraft Co.
795 F. Supp. 965 (D. Arizona, 1992)
Above Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc.
99 F.R.D. 99 (E.D. Virginia, 1983)
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo
637 F.2d 1338 (Ninth Circuit, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Santa Fe Gold Corporation v. Sanders, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santa-fe-gold-corporation-v-sanders-azd-2022.