Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ruggles v. City of Scottsdale, CV-18-02950-PHX-SPL. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20191219853 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 18, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2019
Summary: ORDER STEVEN P. LOGAN , District Judge . Having considered Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 57), the Court will call for a response from Defendant City of Scottsdale. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) ("No response to a motion for reconsideration and no reply to the response may be filed unless ordered by the Court . . ."). Separately, the Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 60) seeking for the Court to consider its Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) instead
More

ORDER

Having considered Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 57), the Court will call for a response from Defendant City of Scottsdale. See LRCiv 7.2(g)(2) ("No response to a motion for reconsideration and no reply to the response may be filed unless ordered by the Court . . .").

Separately, the Plaintiff filed a motion (Doc. 60) seeking for the Court to consider its Motion for Reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) instead of under FRCP 60(b). The Plaintiff missed the deadline to file his Motion for Reconsideration under Rule 59(e), as any motion pursuant to FRCP 59(e) is due 28 days after entry of judgment. The Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration 30 days after entry of judgment.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant shall have until January 17, 2020 to file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 57). No reply shall be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from a Judgment or Order (Doc. 60) is denied.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer