United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
G.
MURRAY SNOW CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Defendants
Greenfield Products, LLC and Mi-Jack Products, Inc.
(“Defendants”) move for reconsideration of this
Court's October 9, 2019 Order (Doc. 109) granting
Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. (Doc.
110.)[1] Defendants' motion is denied.
Also
pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Application for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs in compliance with the
Court's October 9, 2019 Order. (Doc. 114.) The
application was requested to provide a basis for
Plaintiff's sanction award. For reasons discussed below,
Defendants' counsel are sanctioned in the amount of $9,
029.45.
DISCUSSION
I.
Motion for Reconsideration
A
motion for reconsideration may be granted if the moving party
can show: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable
neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud or other
misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or
discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying
relief from the operation of the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P.
60(b). Rule 60(b) motions should be granted only in rare
circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909
F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Such motions should not
be used for the purpose of asking a court “‘to
rethink what the court had already thought through-rightly or
wrongly.'” Id. (quoting Above the
Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99,
101 (E.D. Va. 1983)). A 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).
In its
Order, the Court found that existing caselaw supports
Plaintiff's assertion that Defendants' failure to
have a representative with full settlement authority present
at the court ordered mediation, coupled with Defendants
refusal to listen to Plaintiff's presentation,
constituted grounds for sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P.
16(f)(1)(B). Because the cases relied on by the
Court[2] were not cited in Plaintiff's
briefing, Defendants assert that they were deprived of an
opportunity to distinguish their conduct.
The
Court held oral argument on this matter on December 10, 2019.
Having heard the parties' arguments, the Court finds no
basis to reconsider its order. The Court ordered private
mediation at the mediator's request. The mediator
required that the parties have representatives actually
present with sufficient authority to settle the case.
Defendants did not comply with this request. The
representative in attendance only had the authority to offer
the self-insured retention to settle the case. Further the
Defendants declined to hear the Plaintiff's position
personally after being requested by the mediator to do so.
II.
Plaintiff's Fee Application
In its
October 9, 2019 Order, the Court granted Plaintiff's
motion for sanctions in the amount of reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs incurred to prepare for and
participate in the court ordered mediation. Plaintiff's
corresponding fee application requests an award of $12,
354.45. Defendants “do not take issue with the
reasonableness of the hourly rates charged by Plaintiffs
counsel.”[3] (Doc. 118 at 2.) The only dispute with
respect to Plaintiffs requested award is the inclusion of
Plaintiff s air travel time-13.3 hours billed at $250 per
hour ($3, 325.00).
Air
travel time is generally not compensable pursuant to LRCiv
54.2(e)(2)(D).[4]Plaintiff argues that fee awards made under
A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A) are not subject to the air travel
time restriction in LRCiv 54.2. The Court, however, is
awarding sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f), not fees
under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A). Thus, the local rule
excluding air travel time is applicable. After deducting the
fees associated with air travel time, Plaintiffs fees and
costs reasonably incurred in relation to the court ordered
mediation total $9, 029.45. Plaintiff is awarded sanctions in
the amount of $9, 029.45.
CONCLUSION
IT
IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 110) is DENIED
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Doc. 114) is granted in part
and denied in part. Plaintiff is awarded its reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs incurred in preparing for and
...