Free Appeal Document - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

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

- : _ an l { - l
L s y
-
I. I
A ‘-—'*¤¤¤·v¤¤ `··— L°¤==¤¤ I l
1 ;
- MA `
2 - Y 1 0 2005
Glgnx _ mm
IS - CTC
3 sv To Over
-....*0 ‘*·¤·¤<>~A
4 . _ UTY
. 5 i
6 .
Y IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT E
8 l FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Q
q i
10 E
ll ’
l2 Constance Ann Maynard, ) y
)
13 Plaintiff, } No. CIV 04-0525 PHX RCB 2
'W
14 vs. ) 0 R D E R §
)
I5 CNA Group Life Assurance )
Company, et al., ) `
16 )
Defendants. )
17 )
18 On April 7, 2005, Plaintiff Constance Ann Maynard, filed a
19 Motion for Reconsideration. {doc. 62). Upon order of the Court, .
20 (doc. 64), Defendants CNA Group Life;Assurance Company, et al. I
E! ("CNA") filed a response to Maynard's motion. (doo. 55). On April A
22 28, 2005, Maynard filed her reply to CNA's response. (doc. 55).
23 Having carefully reviewed the arguments submitted by the parties,
24 the Court now rules. f
25 The decision to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is
20 left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See School Dist. .
27 No. lJ, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (Bw
28 Cir. 1993)- Such motions are disfavored and are only appropriate
, 0 5 N
- { ;
_ __ Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB D0cument112—5 Filed O2/O8¢2006 . Page-2 0f4

1 1
l 1 if a court "il} is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2)
2 committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
3 unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling
4 law." ld; A motion for reconsideration is not the place to make new
5 arguments not raised in the original briefs. All Hawaii Tours v.
- 6 Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 115 F.R.D- 645, 650 (D- Haw. 1987}, rev'd
7 on other grounds, 855 F.2d 86G (9* Cir. 1988)- Nor is it the time {
8 to ask the court to rethink what it has already thought. Above the
9 Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D- 99, 101 (E.D. g
B 10 va. 19831. I
I H Here, Maynard does not raise any newly discovered evidence in
12 her motion. In support of her request for reconsideration, Maynard
13 argues that (1} CNA did not provide Policy—2 to Maynard until after
14 the administrative record was closed; (2) that Policy—2 is Q
15 materially different from Policy—l; and (3) that more discovery
16 should be allowed in order to explore the possible existence of é
17 conflicts. Motion (doc. 621 at 5-7, 13-15- These assertions,
18 however, are the same arguments that she posed in her initial
19 opposition to CNA’s motion for partial summary judgment. Resp. _
20 {doc, 531 at 2-7.1 A motion for reconsideration that merely repeats _
21 arguments previously raised is appropriately denied. Taylor v. g
22 hnapp, 871 F.2d 803, BCE {9; Cir. 1938}. ·
23 Second, this Court did rot commit clear error when it granted
24 CNA's motion for partial summary judgment- To prove that the Court l
25 ?
26 V
'Maynard does not argue in either her response to CNA's motion
27 for partial summary judgment or her motion for reconsideration that
Policy-2 cannot be the operative contract due to its absence from the
28 administrative record.
-., . .» Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB D0cument112-5 Filed-O2/08/2006 ·Page30f4 ‘

_ l . { {
1 committed clear error, the movant must demonstrate that the Court’s
2 action falls clearly outside the bounds of its authority. McDowell _
3 v. Calerdon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1256 {9m Cir. 1999). If the propriety ¤
( 4 of the Court’s judgment is a debatable question, there is no clear l
5 error and the motion to reconsider is properly denied. Id. Here,
6 Maynard has made no arguments demonstrating that the Court's orderv
7 falls outside the bounds of its authority. i
S Finally, Maynard has not indicated that there has been an
9 intervening change in controlling law. Therefore, the third basis
· 10 for a motion for reconsideration is not met. Q
H IT IS ORDERED that Maynard's Motion for Reconsideration (doc. E
12 621 is DENIED. I
. K?
13 DATED this · day of May, 2005.
14 ,
15 _ » ; _,
F4? ( .»‘
[6 ··-··.,_____,,-
Robert C. Broo field
17 Senior United States District Judge
18 Copies to counsel of record
19 ‘ _
20 .
21 _
22 I
23
24 -
25 . l
26 l
27
28
. »3— `
-. H . Case 2:04-cv-00525-ECB D0cument112—5 Filed-O2/08/2OG6·—-Page40f4-·

Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB

Document 112-5

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB

Document 112-5

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB

Document 112-5

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00525-RCB

Document 112-5

Filed 02/08/2006

Page 4 of 4