The opinion
1 WO
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 Kirk Shafter, No. CV-25-08087-PCT-MTL
10 Plaintiff, ORDER
11 v.
12 Ronald Brown, et al.,
13 Defendants.
14
15 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 65.) Plaintiff asks
16 the Court to reconsider its order striking the Third Amended Complaint as improper for
17 failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) and Local Rule of Civil
18 Procedure 15.1(a)-(b). (Doc. 61.)
19 Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g) states that motions for reconsideration will
20 ordinarily be denied without “a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or
21 legal authority that could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with
22 reasonable diligence.” This is a high standard that places the burden on the movant. See
23 Lerner & Rowe PC v. Brown Engstrand & Shelly LLC, 684 F. Supp. 3d 953, 955 (D. Ariz.
24 2023).
25 Plaintiff asserts that “[m]uch of the evidence . . . has only recently been uncovered
26 and documented since Plaintiff filed Amended Complaint #2.” (Doc. 65.) But Plaintiff
27 offers no showing that this evidence was previously undiscoverable through the exercise
28 of reasonable diligence. Without such a showing, Plaintiff fails to meet the high bar
1 || required for reconsideration.
2 Accordingly,
3 IT IS ORDERED denying the motion for reconsideration (Doc. 65).
4 Dated this 8th day of September, 2025.
5
° Wichacl T. hurdle
Michael T, Liburdi
8 United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_2-