United States District Court for the District of Arizona, 2020

Martinez v. Wells Fargo & Company

Martinez v. Wells Fargo & Company
United States District Court for the District of Arizona · Decided October 6, 2020
Martinez v. Wells Fargo & Company

Trial Court Opinion

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

9 Bert Martinez, No. CV-20-01608-PHX-DLR 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Wells Fargo & Company, et al., 13 Defendants.

16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, which asks the Court to set aside its orders denying his application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 5) and terminating his case (Doc. 6) after Plaintiff failed to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 7.) Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F.

22 Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). A motion for reconsideration ordinarily will be denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LRCiv 7.2(g).

25 Further, the motion must “point out with specificity the matters that the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, any new matters being brought to the Court’s attention for the first time and the reasons they were not presented earlier, and any specific modifications being sought in the Court’s Order.” Id. Finally, “[n]o motion for || reconsideration ... may repeat any oral or written argument made by the movant in support || of or in opposition to the motion that resulted in the Order.” Jd. The court may deny a || motion for reconsideration if it fails to comply with these rules. /d. Here, Plaintiff fails to 4|| make a showing of manifest error or new facts or legal authority that could not have been || brought to his attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Rather, Plaintiff reiterates the || arguments made in his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. 7) is DENIED.

8 Dated this 5th day of October, 2020. ll {Z, 12 {UO 13 Upited States Dictic Judge _2-

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.