Thomas B Schaults CQV Trust v. LoanDepot Company LLC

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

9 Thomas B Schaults, No. CV-23-00091-PHX-DJH 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. LoanDepot Company LLC, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Pro se Plaintiff Thomas B Schaults (“Plaintiff”) has filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 29) to this Court’s prior Order (Doc. 28) dismissing this case. In his Motion, Plaintiff states this Court administered an unfair application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 29 at 1). Plaintiff then requests for this Court to enforce and confirm an arbitration award. (Id. at 5–12).

20 Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances.

21 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 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).

28 Plaintiff’s Motion provides no basis for reconsideration under Ninth Circuit || precedent. In fact, he devotes most of his Motion arguing for this Court to enforce and confirm an arbitration award. (Doc. 29 at 5-12). Plaintiff’s Motion is therefore denied.

3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. 29) is denied. This || case is closed and shall remained closed.

6 Dated this 30th day of August, 2023.

8 Do Le ? norable'Diang/4. Humfetewa 10 United States District Fudge _2-