Thomas B Schaults CQV Trust v. LoanDepot Company LLC

Opinion

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

9 Thomas B Schaults, No. CV-23-00091-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 LoanDepot Company LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pro se Plaintiff Thomas B Schaults (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Motion for 16 Reconsideration (Doc. 29) to this Court’s prior Order (Doc. 28) dismissing this case. In 17 his Motion, Plaintiff states this Court administered an unfair application of the Federal 18 Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 29 at 1). Plaintiff then requests for this Court to enforce 19 and confirm an arbitration award. (Id. at 5–12). 20 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. 21 Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion 22 for reconsideration is appropriate where 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). Mere 26 disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong 27 v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). 28 Plaintiff’s Motion provides no basis for reconsideration under Ninth Circuit || precedent. In fact, he devotes most of his Motion arguing for this Court to enforce and confirm an arbitration award. (Doc. 29 at 5-12). Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore denied. 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 29) is denied. This || case is closed and shall remained closed. 6 Dated this 30th day of August, 2023. 7 8 Do Le ? norable'Diang/4. Humfetewa 10 United States District Fudge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-