United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge.
Plaintiff
Prosight __ Syndicate 1110 At Lloyd's (the
“Plaintiff”) initiated this lawsuit against
American Builders and Developers LLC (the
“Defendant”) seeking a declaratory judgment
determining that the Plaintiff is not liable to indemnify the
Defendant for any damages awarded pursuant a separate lawsuit
brought against the Defendant by Maria Virginia Huizache and
Florenciano Axinicuilteco (the “Claimants”).
(Doc. 1) On August 6, 2018, the Claimants filed a motion for
summary judgment, and the motion for summary judgment was
fully briefed on September 20, 2018. (Docs. 88, 97) On
February 13, 2019, the Court issued an order (the “SJ
Order”) granting summary judgment in favor of the
Claimants. (Doc. 143)
The
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (the
“Motion”) (Doc. 146) seeking reversal of the SJ
Order because the Plaintiff argues that (i) the Court
misinterpreted the terms of the insurance contract between
the parties; (ii) the Court's award of summary judgment
was premature as it was made before the close of discovery;
and (iii) new evidence has come forth in discovery that
demonstrates that the Defendant obtained the insurance policy
issued to it by the Plaintiff under false pretenses. (Doc.
146) In response, the Claimants argue that the SJ Order
should be upheld because (i) the Plaintiff fails to identify
any manifest error in the Court's interpretation of the
insurance contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant, and
(ii) the Plaintiff's new evidence argument lacks merit
because the Plaintiff was aware of the evidence at issue
prior to the SJ Order. (Doc. 173) On June 18, 2019, the Court
held a status conference at which the parties provided oral
argument on the Motion and several other pending motions and
discovery disputes.
Reconsideration
is disfavored and “appropriate only in rare
circumstances.” WildEarth Guardians v. United
States Dep't of Justice, 283 F.Supp.3d 783, 795 n.11
(D. Ariz. June 21, 2017); see also Bergdale v.
Countrywide Bank FSB, No. CV-12-8057-PCT-SMM, 2014 WL
12643162, at 2 (D. Ariz. May 23, 2014)
(“[Reconsideration] motions should not be used for the
purpose of asking a court to rethink what the court had
already thought through-rightly or wrongly.”) A motion
for reconsideration will be granted only where the 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.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
Cty., Or. v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993).
The
Court finds that the SJ Order was premature in light of new
evidence that continues to arise throughout the discovery
process. The Court's decision was issued early in the
discovery process, before much of the substantive evidence
between the parties had been exchanged. Through the pleadings
and argument provided at the status conference, the parties
have demonstrated that there is additional evidence that must
be considered in this case prior to an award of summary
judgment. Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to vacate
its earlier Order (Doc. 143) and give the parties leave to
re-submit summary judgment motions at the close of discovery.
As discussed at the status conference, the Court will set a
dispositive motion deadline by which the parties must file
their summary judgment motions. However, the Court admonishes
the parties to focus their future summary judgment arguments
on the new evidence brought forth during the discovery
process and not to re-litigate issues that have already been
decided in standing orders.
In
addition to granting the Motion, the Court will also grant in
part the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Scheduling Order
and for Leave to Amend. (Doc. 105) The Plaintiff's
request to modify the scheduling order in this case is moot
per the Court's Order (Doc. 179). However, finding good
cause pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the Court will allow the Plaintiff to amend its
complaint and answer to counterclaim solely for the limited
purpose of adding facts and allegations pertaining to the
defense that the insurance contract between the Defendant and
the Plaintiff is void because of the Defendant's alleged
procurement of the insurance contract through material
misrepresentations or omissions. Finally, as addressed at the
status conference, the parties shall meet and confer to
resolve any outstanding issues related to Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike (Doc. 155).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion
for Reconsideration (Doc. 146) is granted;
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court's Order (Doc.
143) is vacated. The parties shall have
until August 30, 2019, the Dispositive
Motion Deadline set forth in the Court's prior Order
(Doc. 179), to file any summary judgement motions;
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion
to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend (Doc. 105)
is granted in part. The Court grants the
Motion for Leave to Amend for the limited purpose of allowing
the Plaintiff to amend its complaint and answer to
counterclaim to add facts and allegations pertaining to the
defense that the insurance contract between the Defendant and
the Plaintiff is void because of the Defendant's alleged
procurement of the insurance contract through material
misrepresentations or omissions. The remainder of the Motion
for Leave to Amend regarding discovery deadlines is
denied as moot per the Court's Order
(Doc. 179); and
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Claimants' Motion to
Strike Plaintiffs Notice of Additional ...