The Freecycle Network, Inc. v. Oey et al Doc.

54

1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 THE FREECYCLE NETWORK, INC., ) No. CV 06-173-TUC-RCC
)
10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
11 vs. )
)
12 )
TIM OEY AND JANE DOE OEY, )
13 )
Defendants. )
14 )
)
15 )
)
16 )
)
17 )
18
On May 26, 2006, Plaintiffs submitted their Motion for Reconsideration (Docket # 51).
19
20 That motion is denied.
21 A denial of a motion for reconsideration is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See
22 School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993)
23 The relevant standard for reconsideration comes from Rule 60(b), which "provides for
24 reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
25 discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment;
26 or (6) 'extraordinary circumstances' which would justify relief." Id. at 1263. A motion for
27 reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to "rethink what the court had already
28 thought through-rightly or wrongly." Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342,

Case 4:06-cv-00173-RCC Document 54 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 1 of 2

Dockets.Justia.com
 1
1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Arguments that a court was in error on the issues it considered should
2
be directed to the court of appeals. Refrigeration Sales Co. v. Mitchell-Jackson, Inc., 605
3
F.Supp. 6, 7 (N.D.Ill. 1983).
4
After a review of the relevant facts and law as well as Plaintiff's motion, the Court, in its
5
discretion, declines to reconsider the previous ruling. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY
6
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Docket # 51) is DENIED.
7
8
DATED this 5th day of June, 2006.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-
Case 4:06-cv-00173-RCC Document 54 Filed 06/05/2006 Page 2 of 2