Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Center for Biological Diversity, et al., No. CV-24-0031-PHX-JAT 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 United States Forest Service, et al., 13 Defendants. [14] 15 Defendants move for clarification inquiring whether Local Rule 7.2(g) applies to 16 Plaintiffs’ pending motion. Plaintiffs’ motion was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 59. (Doc. 47). 18 In this Court’s opinion, Local Rule Civil 7.2(g) applies only to interlocutory orders, 19 not final orders. 20 LRCiv 7.2(g) governs motions for reconsideration of interlocutory orders. See Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 21 581 , 582–83 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Gala AZ Holdings, Inc., No. CV 11-00383-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 22 3704697, at *1 n.1 (D. Ariz. Aug. 28, 2012) (noting that the Court applies the standard set forth in Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors to 23 non-appealable, interlocutory orders, but applies the standard set forth in Rule 59 to appealable orders). [24] Kaufman v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., No. CV-16-02248-PHX-JAT, 2019 WL 1150953 , at [25] *2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 13, 2019); see also Parker v. Arizona, No. CV-17-00887-PHX-DWL, [26] 2019 WL 2579404 , at *2 (D. Ariz. June 24, 2019) (applying the same conclusion). [27] Here, the Order at issue was final and a judgment was entered. Therefore, this Court [28] will not apply Local Rule Civil 7.2(g). 1 Based on the foregoing, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the motion for clarification (Doc. 48) is granted to the extent || specified above. 4 Dated this 27th day of September, 2024. [5] 6 ' g = James A. C rg Senior United States District Judge [28] _2-