United States District Court, D. Arizona
Brian M. Katt, et al., Plaintiffs,
Jordan J. Riepe, et al., Defendants.
DAVID G. CAMPBELL, District Judge.
The parties have filed motions for reconsideration of the Court's June 26, 2015 order. Docs. 140, 141. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant Defendants' motion in part and deny Plaintiffs' motion.
This lawsuit arises out of the sale of Plaintiffs Brian and Rachel Katt's vehicle towing business, U.S. Metro. The ten count complaint named Jordan Riepe, Janette Riepe, J.A.R.R. Towing & Recovery LLC, Duane Weston, McCarthy Weston PLLC, Dominic Femia, WCI Brokers, Michael Shumaker, and BizDoc Inc. as Defendants.
On December 10, 2014, Plaintiffs dismissed their claims against Jordan and JARR. Doc. 88. They also dismissed count eight - unjust enrichment - against Janette. Id. at 2. On January 6, 2015, Plaintiffs dismissed their claims against Femia and WCI Brokers. Doc. 95.
In March 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. 102) and Defendants Janette Riepe, Duane Weston, and McCarthy Weston PLLC filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 113). Plaintiffs also filed a motion for default judgment against Michael Shumacher and BizDoc. Doc. 96. On June 26, 2015, the Court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment, denying Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and denying Plaintiffs' motion for default judgment. Doc. 138. Although several of Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, their claims for unjust enrichment, negligence, and tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing survived the ruling. Id. at 18. Both parties ask the Court to reconsider its order.
II. Legal Standard.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and should be granted only in rare circumstances. Collins v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F.Supp.2d 936, 938 (D. Ariz. 2003). A motion for reconsideration 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 [the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence." LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV-05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2008). Nor should reconsideration be used to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998); see N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988).
III. Defendants' Motion.
Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs' remaining claims for unjust enrichment, negligence, and tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They argue that Plaintiffs dismissed the unjust enrichment claim against Janette in December 2014. They also assert the Court's factual findings mandate dismissal of the remaining tort claims.
Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs dismissed their unjust enrichment claim against Janette. Count eight - unjust enrichment - was brought against Jordan, JARR, Janette, Femia, and WCI Brokers. Doc. 1 at 59. Each Defendant has been dismissed via stipulation. See Docs. 88, 95. This claim will be dismissed.
Defendants' remaining arguments, however, were not raised in their motion for summary judgment. Doc. 113. Motions for reconsideration "are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs." Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contr., 215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D. Ariz. 2003). Nor is the Court obligated to make arguments for Defendants when ruling on motions for summary judgment. See, e.g., Weissman v. Weener, 12 F.3d 84, 86 (7th Cir. 1993) (noting that "judges should be hesitant to wander too far astray - in their search for the correct legal result - from the arguments presented to them by the parties"); First Fin. Bank v. CS Assets, LLC, 678 F.Supp.2d 1216, 1241 n.37 (S.D. Ala. 2010) ("As stated repeatedly herein, the Court will not make or develop a party's arguments for it on summary judgment."). As a result, the Court correctly declined to grant summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims for negligence and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Because the Court recognizes that Defendants' failure to raise these argument may result in a waste of resources for the Court and all parties, the Court will permit Defendants to file a second motion for summary judgment on these claims. The motion shall be filed by August 7, 2015, and shall not exceed ten pages. Plaintiffs' response shall be filed by August 21, 2015, and shall not exceed ten pages. Defendants' reply shall be filed by ...