De Silva v. Pima County Government et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Nirosh H. De Silva,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Pima County Government, a political
subdivision/governmental entity; et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 24-00200-TUC-MAA
ORDER
Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion, filed on September 29, 2026, for
reconsideration of the court’s order granting-in-part the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 155). Doc. 157.
Discussion
A motion for reconsideration invites the court to re-litigate a matter, but it is
appropriate in only “rare circumstances.” Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp.
1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). It is “an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Est.
of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (punctuation modified). “Reconsideration is
appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence [that could
not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence], (2) committed clear error or the
initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling
Case 4:24-cv-00200-MAA Document 162 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 2 -
law.” School Dist. No. 1J,Multnomah County v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
1993); see also LRCiv 7.2(g) (“The Court will ordinarily deny a motion for reconsideration
of an Order absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority
that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”).
A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona
Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original).
Nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or
in opposition to a motion. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, Inc., 215 F.R.D.
581, 586 (D. Ariz. 2003); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). 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 this case, “Plaintiff respectfully asks the Court to reconsider most of those claims
that were granted summary judgement, that are on the face, misaligned with the factual
record, and contrary to: State Supreme Court precedent; Ninth Circuit precedent; and
Supreme Court precedent.” Doc. 157, p. 15. He asserts that “[g]ranting this Motion for
Reconsideration for most if not all [of] the listed claims is warranted to avoid a manifest
[in]justice.” Id.
“In motions seeking reconsideration, ‘manifest injustice’ is used as a catch-all factor
to capture situations that strike the court as fundamentally unfair.” Raya v. Calbiotech, 2019
WL 11504688, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2019). “However, the manifest injustice standard
sets a high bar.” Id. “The courts of the Ninth Circuit generally treat manifest injustice as
very nearly synonymous with clear error, defining manifest injustice as any error in the trial
court that is direct, obvious and observable, such as a defendant’s guilty plea that is
involuntary.” Id. “Additionally, while the manifest injustice ground acts as a catch-all
provision, it is not meant to allow a disappointed litigant to attempt to persuade the court to
change its mind.” Id. (punctuation modified).
Case 4:24-cv-00200-MAA Document 162 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 -
The plaintiff directs the court to State Supreme Court precedent, Ninth Circuit
precedent, Supreme Court precedent, and specific places in the record all of which could
have been presented earlier. He argues that the court’s decision is manifestly unjust, but
none of his arguments establish that the court committed clear error. At best, the plaintiff
shows that reasonable minds could differ. That is not enough.
IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion, filed on September 29, 2026, for
reconsideration of the court’s order granting-in-part the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. 155) is Denied. Doc. 157.
DATED this 13th day of October, 2026.
Case 4:24-cv-00200-MAA Document 162 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3