Filed: Sep. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38). The Court will deny the motion. Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of re
Summary: ORDER DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38). The Court will deny the motion. Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of rea..
More
ORDER
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
Defendants have filed a motion for reconsideration (Doc. 38). The Court will deny the motion.
Courts in this district have identified four circumstances where a motion for reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party could not previously have known of the factual or legal differences through the exercise of reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the Court's initial decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court's initial decision, or (4) the moving party makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. See, e.g., Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).
Defendants argue that dismissal is warranted under Rooker-Feldman because "it is apparent that Plaintiff's attack in State Court on the same collection practices that are the basis of the Federal lawsuit make these claims inextricably intertwined with the State Court's decisions such that adjudication of McNair's claims here would undercut the State Court's rulings." Doc. 38 at 4. In its order denying Defendants' motion to dismiss, the Court discussed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and explained why it does not apply in this case. See Doc. 37 at 4-6. The Court will not reconsider this decision.
In its previous order, the Court was unable to fully address Defendants' arguments regarding the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel because Defendants failed to provide the Court with a copy of the stipulation or records of the state court proceedings. Doc. 37 at 8-9. Defendants attest that they attached physical copies of these documents to the original motion they mailed to the Clerk. Doc. 38 at 2. Defendants state that they did not file the documents electronically for fear of violating Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), but filing records of an Arizona state proceeding to support defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel clearly is permissible under that rule. Unfortunately, Defendants have again failed to file these records electronically on CM/ECF, rendering the Court unable to consult them.1 The Court will not reconsider Defendants' motion on this basis.2
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to reconsider (Doc. 38) is denied.
