Jon Evans v. Critter Control Operations Incorporated, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denied Jon Evans’s motion for reconsideration of an order denying his request to modify an earlier order dismissing his punitive-damages claim. The court held that the motion was untimely under Local Rule 7.2(g) and that Evans failed to show good cause for the delay, manifest error, or new facts or legal authority warranting reconsideration.

Holdings

1. District of Arizona Local Rule 7.2(g) supplements Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), so a party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order must comply with the local rule's fourteen-day deadline unless good cause for delay is shown.
2. Plaintiff did not establish good cause for filing his motion to modify outside the fourteen-day period and did not show manifest error, new facts, or new legal authority that could not earlier have been presented with reasonable diligence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether District of Arizona Local Rule 7.2(g)'s fourteen-day deadline and good-cause requirement supplement and apply to motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
2. Whether Plaintiff established good cause, manifest error, or newly presented facts or legal authority warranting reconsideration of the denial of his untimely motion to modify.

Disposition

other