Case Information
*1 WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Anne L. Rice, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-06-2727-PHX-DGC
ORDER
Plaintiff,
vs.
Lender Services Direct, Inc., a California corporation; and Alliance Title Company, a California corporation,
Defendants.
Plaintiff has filed a second motion for leave to amend the complaint. Dkt. #45. A response and reply have been filed. Dkt. ##54, 56. The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
I. Background.
Plaintiff Anne Rice filed a class action complaint against Defendants Lender Services Direct, Inc. (“LSD”) and Alliance Title Company (“ATC”) on November 13, 2006. Dkt. #1. A Case Management Conference was held in February 2007 pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Case Management Order dated February 15, 2007, provided that “[t]he deadline for joining parties and amending pleadings is 60 days from the date of this Order.” Dkt. #19 ¶ 2 (emphasis in original). The deadline for filing motions for leave to amend was therefore April 16, 2007.
*2 Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint on June 8, 2007. Dkt. #38.
Plaintiff sought to substitute Nancy Baker and Diane Baldwin as class plaintiffs. Id. The Court denied the motion on June 14, 2007 on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to show good cause to modify the Court’s Rule 16 schedule. Dkt. #42.
II. Analysis.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff again seeks to substitute Baker and Baldwin as plaintiffs. Dkt. #45. Plaintiff essentially asks the Court to reconsider its order denying Plaintiff’s initial motion to amend.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are not the place for parties to make new arguments or to ask the Court to rethink its analysis. See Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc. , 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Rezzonico , 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). Courts in this District have identified four circumstances where a motion for reconsideration will be granted: (1) the moving party has discovered material differences in fact or law from those presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision, and the party could not previously have known of the differences through the exercise of reasonable diligence, (2) material factual events have occurred since the Court’s initial decision, (3) there has been a material change in the law since the Court’s initial decision, and (4) the movant makes a convincing showing that the Court failed to consider material facts that were presented to the Court at the time of its initial decision. See Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc. , 215 F.R.D. 581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003).
Plaintiff argues that good cause now exists to permit amendment to substitute Baker and Baldwin as class representatives. Dkt. #45 at 2. The Court agrees. Plaintiff’s husband was diagnosed with a serious illness on June 7, 2007, and had surgery related to the illness on June 18, 2007. Id. Mr. Rice faces post-surgery hospitalization and continued medical treatment. Id. at 5. Plaintiff states that she needs to devote a substantial amount of time to care for her husband and therefore is precluded from continuing to serve as a class representative. Id. ; Dkt. #56 at 2.
Mr. Rice’s current medical condition constitutes a material event that occurred after *3 the Court’s initial order denying leave to amend. Plaintiff promptly moved to amend the complaint following Mr. Rice’s surgery. See Dkt. #45. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion to amend to the extent Plaintiff seeks to substitute Baker and Baldwin as plaintiffs.
The proposed amended complaint, however, contains new allegations not directly related to the transactions involving Baker and Baldwin. See Dkt. #38-3 ¶¶ 48-74, 91, 95; Dkt. #45-4 ¶¶ 33-59, 76, 80. Defendant LSD correctly notes that while Mr. Rice’s illness may be justification for substituting parties, it does not give Plaintiff the right to assert new allegations unrelated to the proposed substitution. Dkt. #54 at 3. Plaintiff does not explain why she failed to address the propriety of the new allegations in her initial motion to amend. Nor does Plaintiff argue that the new allegations are necessary to state claims for relief given Rule 8’s notice pleading standard. Dkt. #56 at 5. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion to amend to the extent Plaintiff seeks to add allegations beyond those necessary to substitute Baker and Baldwin as plaintiffs.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend class complaint (Dkt. #45) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this order.
2. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint consistent with this order by August 25, 2007 .
3. A conference call to address modification of the Court’s Rule 16 schedule is set for August 24, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.
DATED this 8th day of August, 2007.