Waesche v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Incorporated

Opinion

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

9 Olga I Waesche, No. CV-21-08020-PCT-DLR

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Incorporated, 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 17 September 29, 2023 order. (Doc. 84.) Additional briefing is unnecessary, and the Court 18 denies the motion. 19 Motions for reconsideration are rarely granted. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 20 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration ordinarily will be 21 denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority 22 that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 23 7.2(g). The motion must “point out with specificity the matters the movant believes were 24 overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s 25 attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific 26 modifications being sought in the Court’s order.” Id. Further, “[n]o motion for 27 reconsideration . . . may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support 28 or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order.” Id. The Court may deny a motion 1 || for reconsideration if it fails to comply with these rules. Jd. 2 Here, Plaintiff has neither made a showing of manifest error nor presented the Court 3 || with new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Rather, Plaintiff merely repeats arguments that the Court previously considered and rejected. Plaintiff's mere disagreement with the Court’s order is || an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 7\| 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Further, “it is not enough to simply incant the phrase ‘manifest 8 || error.’” Estrada v. Bashas Inc., No. CV-02-00591-PHX-RCB, 2014 WL 1319189, at *3 (D. Ariz. Apr. 1, 2014). Plaintiff must identify each error and explain how it is “plain and || indisputable[,] . . . amount[ing] to a complete disregard of the controlling law or credible 11 |} evidence in the record.” /d. Plaintiff has not done that. Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration (Doc. 84) is DENIED. 13 Dated this 17th day of October, 2023. 14 15 16 {Z, 17 {UO 18 Uatted States Dictric Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-