Shafter v. Brown

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

9 Kirk Shafter, No. CV-25-08087-PCT-MTL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Ronald Brown, et al., 13 Defendants.

15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 65.) Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its order striking the Third Amended Complaint as improper for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 15.1(a)-(b). (Doc. 61.)

19 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) states that motions for reconsideration will ordinarily be denied without “a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” This is a high standard that places the burden on the movant. See Lerner & Rowe PC v. Brown Engstrand & Shelly LLC, 684 F. Supp. 3d 953, 955 (D. Ariz. 2023).

25 Plaintiff asserts that “[m]uch of the evidence . . . has only recently been uncovered and documented since Plaintiff filed Amended Complaint #2.” (Doc. 65.) But Plaintiff offers no showing that this evidence was previously undiscoverable through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Without such a showing, Plaintiff fails to meet the high bar || required for reconsideration.

2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS ORDERED denying the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 65).

4 Dated this 8th day of September, 2025. ° Wichacl T. hurdle Michael T, Liburdi 8 United States District Judge _2-