Opinion
No. CV-02-1393-PHX-JAT.
June 17, 2004
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Dorothy and Stanley Plagens' Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #80). Plaintiffs urge this Court to reconsider its grant of Defendant National RV Holding Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #41) on Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint, breach of written warranty (Doc. #28). For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion.
DISCUSSION
I. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER
"A district court may reconsider its grant of summary judgment under either Federal Rule of Covil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment)." Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate its order granting [summary] judgment. See Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-Cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 (9th Cir. 1992). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, however, and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). Nor is it the time to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought. See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998) (citing Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannon Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va. 1983)).
Any motion to alter or amend judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) must "be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." In addition, the motion must provide (1) a valid reason why the Court should reconsider its prior decision, and (2) facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., All Haw. Tours Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D. 645, 648-49 (D. Haw. 1987). The Court may grant such a motion if the Court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263. The Court may grant a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60(b) only "upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief." Id. at 1263; see Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b); Allmerica Fin. Life Ins. Annuity Co. v. Llewellyn, 139 F.3d 664, 666 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that party must show "extraordinary circumstances" to obtain relief under Rule 60(b)(6)).
In their Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiffs' argue: (1) that Defendant's written warranty would lead a reasonable consumer to believe that the whole RV is warranted; (2) that Defendant's warranty fails to identify any other warrantors or plainly explain which parts are covered; and (3) as a result, Defendant "adopted all warranties" under 16 C.F.R. § 700.4 of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Whether or not these arguments have any validity is of no importance, as motions for reconsideration are not the place for parties to make arguments raised or not raised in their original briefs. See Northwest Acceptance Corp., 841 F.2d at 925-26.
Plaintiffs have failed to meet the standard for this Court to reconsider its grant of summary judgment to Defendant. As stated above, this Court may only grant Plaintiff's Motion under Rule 59(e) if the Court "(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d at 1263. None of Plaintiff's arguments suggest that this Court committed clear error or that its grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant was manifestly unjust. Nor has Plaintiffs presented newly discovered evidence, or identified a change in the law that would have altered the Court's analysis. Rather Plaintiffs have merely reasserted arguments that they raised in their response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
Relief under Rule 60(b) is also inappropriate. As indicated above, under Rule 60(b), this Court may only grant Plaintiffs' Motion "upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) extraordinary circumstances which would justify relief." Id. Plaintiffs have failed to meet any of these standards. Consequently, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider (Doc. #80) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and has previously granted summary judgment in favor if Defendant National RV Holdings, Inc. and against Plaintiffs (Doc. #79), and all other defendants have been dismissed, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant National RV Holdings, Inc. and terminate this case.