Bassford v. Mesa, City of 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
Gabriel J Bassford,
Plaintiff,
v.
City of Mesa, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-25-01034-PHX-JAT (ESW)
ORDER
In its October 23, 2025 Order, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for entry of
default, finding Defendants’ filing of a motion to dismiss was sufficient to “appear” under
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.3(a). Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of that decision.
(Doc. 100.) But a motion for reconsideration is appropriate only where the district court
“(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial
decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”
Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
None of those scenarios are presented here and the motion for reconsideration will be
denied.
Plaintiff also incorrectly believes he is entitled to reconsideration because
Defendants did not file a response to that motion. But Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.2(g)
prohibits the non-moving party from responding to a motion for reconsideration unless
directed to do so by the Court. Plaintiff’s motion of entitlement must also be denied.
IT IS ORDERED withdrawing the reference to the Magistrate Judge as to the
Case 2:25-cv-01034-JAT-CDB Document 102 Filed 11/19/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
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
following motions: Docs. 100 and 101.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration
(Doc. 100) and Motion of Entitlement to Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.
101).
Dated this 19th day of November, 2025.
Case 2:25-cv-01034-JAT-CDB Document 102 Filed 11/19/25 Page 2 of 2