Free Appeal Document - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

ATTACHMENT 5
Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB Document 112-6 Filed O2/08/2006 Page 1 of 4

.. ' *
` I" -
· - · _____LGDGlD
‘ I. . ......,|'IE¢ENED ..,_,¤¤F‘f i
3 . JUN ‘ 2 ZUD5 I
,_y ` · CLEFIKU IITHICT COURT
—" _, DIST ‘f· ARIZONA .
4 - ar orspurv
-
6 _
I I IN TI-IE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Sell FOR THE. D.I.S'.CE`Â¥iJQCJ'JZ` OF ARIZONA
9
II`) K
II
IE Constance Ann Maynard, I
` ' I
I3 Plaintiff, I No'. CIV D4-0525 PHX RCB
I
I4 vs- } O R D E R
I
15 CNA Group Life Assurance D
Company, et al., jr
I6 I _
Defendants. ) 2
I? I ?
18 On May 23, 2005, Plaintiff Constance Ann Maynard, filed a
I9 Motion for Reconsideration of Footnote 1 of the Court's Order Filed `
20 May 10, 2005. (doc. 70). · - I
21 The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is
22 left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See School Dist.
23 No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc`., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th -
24. Cir. 1993). Such motions are disfavored and are only appropriate
25 if a court " {1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) I
26 committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
27 unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling
28 law." Id- A motion for reconsideration is not the place to myrneyk ‘
. I I I
Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB Document 112r6 Fnled O2/O8/2006. Page20f4 I _
I
. I

- n - .
1 arguments not raised in the original briefs. All Hawaii Tours v. 1
i 2 Polynesian Cultural Ctr., I16 F.R.D. 645, 650 (D. Haw. 1987), rev’d
3 on other grounds, 855 F-2d S60 {9m Cir. 1988). Nor is it the time
4 to ask the court to rethink what it has already thought. Above the
5 Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc._ 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.
6 Va. 1983}. g
? Here, Maynard does not raise any newly discovered evidence in i
8 her motion. Moreover, this Court did not commit clear error. To E
9 prove that the Court committed clear error, the movant must ·
10 demonstrate that the Court‘s action falls clearly outside the
A H bounds of ;ts authority. McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1256 2
12 (9* Cir. l999). If the propriety of the Court's judgment is a n i
13 debatable question, there is no clear error and the motion to l
i4 reconsider is properly denied. IQ; Here, Maynard has made no
15 arguments demonstrating that the Court’s footnote falls outside the
16 bounds of its authority.
17 Finally, Maynard has not indicated that there has been an _
18 intervening change in controlling law. Therefore, the third basis
19 for a motion for reconsideration is not met.‘ _ _
20 IT IS ORDERED that Maynard's Motion for Reconsideration of
21 . . . _
22 .
23 U i
24 T
25 - _
26
27
‘In addition, in her motion for reconsideration, Maynard fails
28 to request any specific relief from the Court.
_ _ . . -2-
Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB D0cument112—6 Filed O2/08/2006 ‘ Page30f4

. I ( E"
? I Footnote 1 ef the C0¤.1r1:'e Order Filed May 10, 2005 (dee. 70) is
2 DENIED, `
3 DATED wie day cf May, 2005. · _
4 j -
5 { fn J.
_, cbert C. reemfield ‘
7 . Senior United States District Judge
S Copies cc: counsel of record
q U U
IO
ll
I2 . 2
I3 J U I
I4
15 l
16 .
I?
28 _ .
19 i
20
Z1 an `
2.2 V
23 U U
24 ‘
25 ` _
26 P U
` 27 · U
23 an
Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB D0cument112-_6 Filed O2/08/2006 Page40f4 I

Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB

Document 112-6

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB

Document 112-6

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB

Document 112-6

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB

Document 112-6

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 4 of 4