Sernas v. Cantrell 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
Adam Bernard Sernas,
Plaintiff,
v.
Unknown Cantrell, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-19-00730-PHX-DJH
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Defendants Cotrell and
Collars (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 150). Defendants ask the Court to reconsider
its denial of their Motion in Limine regarding Adam Sernas’ (“Plaintiff”) 2018 medical
bills. (Docs. 130 & 145). Plaintiff has filed a Response opposing the Motion. (Doc. 152).
I. Legal Standard
District courts have discretion to reconsider prior orders. Navajo Nation v. Norris,
331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003); Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir.
1994). However, reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy” that is available only in
“highly unusual circumstances.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890
(9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934,
945 (9th Cir. 2003) (circumstances justifying reconsideration are rare). Motions for
reconsideration are ordinarily denied “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.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). They are generally “disfavored . . . and are not
Case 2:19-cv-00730-DJH Document 154 Filed 11/24/25 Page 1 of 4

- 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
the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original briefs.”
Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mechanical Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 582 (D. Ariz.
2003); LRCiv 7.2(g)(1).
II. Discussion
On June 3, 2025, the Court denied Defendants’ Motion in Limine seeking to
preclude Plaintiff from presenting evidence or witnesses for medical bills incurred before
his release from prison. (Docs. 130 & 145). In that same Motion, Defendants also argued
that the collateral source rule prevented Plaintiff from pressing forward with his damages
claim because the State, not a collateral source, was responsible for paying Plaintiff’s
medical expenses. (Doc. 130). The Court denied the Motion, finding that AHCCCS, a
third-party government payor, paid Plaintiff’s expenses, enabling Plaintiff to pursue
damages against Defendants to satisfy the AHCCCS lien. Now, in their Motion for
Reconsideration, Defendants say that ADCRR has paid in full for Plaintiff’s 2018
medical bills, alleviating the need for Plaintiff to reimburse AHCCCS, because ADCRR
has satisfied the lien placed by AHCCCS on Plaintiff’s recovery. (Doc. 150 at 2).
Because the lien is now discharged, Defendants argue that the collateral source rule no
longer applies as “ADCRR is not a collateral source; is the tortfeasor.” (Id. at 3). If the
Court denies the Motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s theory of damages should be
confined to the value of the lien, and not the total value of his medical bills. (Id. at 4).
Defendants also ask for the opportunity to obtain experts to opine on the reasonableness
of Plaintiff’s medical bills. (Id. at 4–5). Should the Court not allow them to obtain
experts, they ask that in the spirit of fairness, they be allowed to present payment of the
lien by ADCRR. (Id. at 5).
A. Defendants’ Payment of the Lien
Defendants cite to their payment of the AHCCCS lien as enough reason for the
Court to grant their Motion. Defendants present the Court with a legal quagmire that is
entirely their own making. Had Defendants not paid the lien, there would be no basis for
the Motion for Reconsideration. Having stated so, however, the Court believes that
Case 2:19-cv-00730-DJH Document 154 Filed 11/24/25 Page 2 of 4

- 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
ADCRR’s September 25, 202,5 payment of the AHCCCS lien falls within the limited
parameters for which a motion for reconsideration can be granted. In fact, a granting of
such a motion is unjustified “[a]bsent 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.” LRCiv 7.2(g)(1). The Court finds that ADCRR’s payment of the
AHCCCS lien is a new fact that justifies granting the Motion. School Dist. No. 1J,
Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Because the lien
was paid by the tortfeasor, ADCRR, and not a third-party collateral source, the payment
of the lien, and the payment amount of $21,277.25 is excluded from being presented as
evidence of Plaintiff’s damages. See Lopez v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 129 P.3d 487 (Ct.
App. 2006); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920(A)(1) (payments made by tortfeasors
are credited against the tort liability).
B. Entirety of Plaintiff’s Medical Bills
To circumvent the Court’s ruling that Plaintiff can present evidence of his 2018
medical bills, Defendants ask the Court to exclude the entirely of Plaintiff’s medical bills
and confine Plaintiff’s recovery to only the amount of the lien. (Doc. 150 at 4). This new
legal argument cannot be used to support a motion for reconsideration. Kona Enterprises,
Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F .3d 877 (9th Cir.2000) (“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.”). Defendants admit that “The
Court’s ruling at Doc. 145 was silent on the issue of whether Plaintiff could present the
total value of the medical bills or the value of the lien.” (Doc. 150 at 4). If the Court’s
Order was silent on this issue, as Defendants note, it is because it was not placed before
it. So, the Defendants should not bring it to the Court’s attention on a Motion for
Reconsideration, because a motion for reconsideration is not the proper avenue to raise a
new legal argument for the first time. Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. The Court will
not confine Plaintiff’s damages theory to the value of the lien at this time.
Case 2:19-cv-00730-DJH Document 154 Filed 11/24/25 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
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
C. Defendants’ Request for Expert Rebuttal
Defendants also request an expert to opine on the reasonableness of the medical
bills incurred by Plaintiff. (Doc. 150 at 5). Again, the Court reiterates that only three
things can be argued on a Motion for Reconsideration: (1) newly discovered evidence;
(2) clear error or; (3) intervening change in law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A request for a rebuttal expert does not
fall into any of the listed categories. Not only that, but the time to make such a request in
general, has passed. See F.R.C.P. 37(c)(1) (requiring that the failure to identify or provide
information about a witness in a timely manner, exclude the witness, unless the failure is
substantially justified or harmless). Therefore, the Court will not grant Defendants’
request for a rebuttal expert on this Motion for Reconsideration.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is granted in
part and denied in part. It is granted to exclude mention of the amount in medical
bills, $21,277.25, paid for by ADCRR on the AHCCCS lien, at least to show Plaintiff’s
entitlement to damages. It is denied as to the request to confine Plaintiff’s damages
solely to the amount of the lien and Defendants’ request to obtain expert rebuttal
witnesses for the issue of damages, is also denied.
Dated this 24th day of November, 2025.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:19-cv-00730-DJH Document 154 Filed 11/24/25 Page 4 of 4