Orman v. Central Loan Administration & Reporting

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Leslie E. Orman, No. CV-19-04756-PHX-DWL 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Central Loan Administration & Reporting, et al., Respondents.

15 On August 30, 2019, Petitioner Leslie Orman filed a “Response and Motion to Strike Respondents’ Pleadings As Frivolous and Motion for Confirmation of Arbitration Award.” (Doc. 19.) On September 5, 2019, the Court issued an order that, inter alia, denied Petitioner’s motion to strike because Petitioner did “not identify any statute or rule that would authorize her motion to strike, nor does she suggest that Respondents’ motions are prohibited (or not authorized) by statute, rule, or court order. Petitioner’s filing offers only arguments as to why the motions should be denied, not as to why they should be struck.” (Doc. 21 at 1-2.)

23 Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying her motion to strike. (Doc. 28.)

25 “Motions to reconsider are appropriate only in rare circumstances.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where the district 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.” School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah 2|| County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Mere disagreement with a || previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). A motion for reconsideration “may not || be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first ttme when they could reasonably || have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 7\| 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument || previously made in support of or in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers 9|| Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).

10 The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s earlier motion, the September 5, 2019 order, |} and the motion for reconsideration. Based on that review, the Court finds no basis to || reconsider its prior ruling.

13 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (Doc.

28) is denied.

15 Dated this 30th day of September, 2019.

17 Z — 19 United States District Judge _2-