Motion to Reconsider/Vacate (Summary Judgment) in Arizona

Background

“Summary judgment is appropriate where the claim or defense ha[s] so little probative value, given the quantum of evidence required, that reasonable people could not agree with the conclusion advanced by the proponent of the claim or defense." (See Orme School v. Reeves (1990) 166 Ariz. 301, 309, 802 P.2d 1000, 1008; Blocher v. Thompson (1991) 169 Ariz. 182, 185.)

“In spite of its rather prevalent use, it is interesting to note that the Rules of Civil Procedure contain no specific provision for a motion to reconsider.” (See Spradling v. Rural Fire Protection Company (1975) 23 Ariz. App. 549, 550 n.2.)

“The superior court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order upon a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect." (See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1); Presto Auto Loans Inc. v. Nurumbi, No. 1 CA-CV 19-0077, at *4 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 19, 2020).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Generally, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration.” (See Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc. (2006) 215 Ariz. 237, 240, ¶ 15, 159 P.3d 547, 550; Ramsey v. Yavapai Family Advocacy Center (2010) 225 Ariz. 132, 137.)

“One of the reasons . . . is that when a new argument is raised for the first time in a motion for reconsideration, the prevailing party below is routinely deprived of the opportunity to fairly respond." (See id.)

“While we may exercise our discretion and consider new issues raised in a motion to reconsider, we normally only do so when new facts or arguments have come to light after the trial court's initial ruling, when the trial court has addressed the merits of the motion to reconsider, or when the trial court has requested a response to the motion to reconsider.” (See Ramsey v. Yavapai Family Advocacy Ctr. (2010) 225 Ariz. 132, 137-38, ¶¶ 18-19, 235 P.3d 285, 290-91; T.R. World Gym, LLC v. Brunswick Corp. (2012) 1 CA-CV 11-0742, at *12.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we view the facts and any reasonable inferences drawn from the facts in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered." (See Maycock v. Asilomar Dev., Inc. (2004) 207 Ariz. 495, 496, ¶ 2, 88 P.3d 565, 566; All Custom Exteriors, Inc. v. Bilyea, No. 1 CA-CV 10-0702, at *6 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2011).)

“We also determine de novo whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the trial court correctly applied the law." (See Diaz v. Phoenix Lubrication Serv., Inc. (2010) 224 Ariz. 335, 338, ¶ 10, 230 P.3d 718, 721; All Custom Exteriors, Inc. v. Bilyea, No. 1 CA-CV 10-0702, at *6 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 29, 2011).)

However, “a superior court's grant of a motion to reconsider is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” (See Grewal v. O'Connor, No. 1 CA-SA 13-0208, at *11 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2013).)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “Rule 73(b), supra, enumerates the motions which extend the time in which the notice of appeal may be filed beyond sixty days from the entry of judgment. A motion to vacate judgment is not one of the motions enumerated, hence the filing of such motion does not extend the time." (See Spradling v. Rural Fire Protection Company (1975) 23 Ariz. App. 549, 551.)

It is also well settled that “under the law of the case doctrine, a court acts within its discretion in refusing to reopen questions previously decided in the same case by the same court or a higher appellate court' unless an error in the first decision renders it manifestly erroneous or unjust or when a substantial change occurs in essential facts or issues, in evidence, or in the applicable law.” (See Associated Aviation Underwriters v. Wood (2004) 209 Ariz. 137, 150.)