On Friday, 25 October, Judge James Soto’s issued his response to Hudbay’s motion for reconsideration. He only took 1 ½ pages to deny it. He briefly summarized the law on the subject and made several statements including:
- “motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances,”
- “nor may a motion for reconsideration repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to a motion,” and
- “mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration.”
His conclusion: “The Court has reviewed the record in this case. The Court finds no basis to reconsider its decision. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Rosemont’s motion for reconsideration is …denied.”
He also denied Rosemont/Hudbay’s request for oral argument by saying, “Because the briefing (that is, what was presented in writing and verbally in court) is adequate and oral argument will not help in resolving this matter, oral argument is denied.”
Judge Soto’s decision was not really a surprise, but we are pleased to see it. It seemed as if Rosemont/Hudbay was just using the request for reconsideration as a stalling tactic. But, now the 60-day clock starts ticking; i.e., Rosemont/Hudbay have 60 days to file an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals of Judge Soto’s 31 July decision. They will very likely do that. It is our understanding that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is very backlogged and, thus, this case will not be heard for at least 18 months. Our legal beagle guys and gals are keeping a close eye on everything.
For more info, see the latest news article in the Arizona Daily Star: