90 Treasure Island opposition.pdf
Case 2:12-cv-00239-KJD -RJJ Document 90
In its Motion to Reconsider, Plaintiff erroneously cites Rule 54(b) as the basis for its
Standard On Requests To Reconsider.
mechanism for a motion for reconsideration; however, historically, motions for reconsideration
have been allowed in the federal courts pursuant to Rules 59(e) and 60(b). Since no Rule
expressly provides for a motion to reconsider, it is within the Court's sound discretion whether to
entertain such a motion. See Martella v. Marine Cooks & Stewards Union, 448 F.2d 729, 730
(9th Cir. 1971) (noting that motions to reconsider "are addressed to the sound discretion of the
100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1600
LAS VEGAS, NV 89106
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Filed 07/13/12 Page 5 of 12
Motion to Reconsider, 1:22.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide no
"A motion to reconsider must provide a court with valid grounds for reconsideration by:
(1) showing some valid reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision, and (2) setting
forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior
supplied). Motions to reconsider are properly denied where the movant fails to establish a reason
justifying the relief sought. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding
that the district court properly denied a motion for reconsideration in which the movant presented
no new substantive arguments). Importantly, a motion for reconsideration should not be granted
"absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered
evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law."
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009).
Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003) (emphasis
Plaintiff Has Not Shown Any Valid Reason Why the Court Should Reconsider.
Plaintiff's entire Motion to Reconsider is predicated on its allegations that the "neglect" of
its previous counsel "led to the [Dismissal Order]." Motion to Reconsider, 4:17-18. Arguing
under Rule 60(b)(1), while simultaneously disclaiming that Rule's application, Plaintiff then
asserts that, at least as to Plaintiff, any neglect of the instant case was "excusable". Id. However,
it has long been the law of this Circuit and others that, "[n]either ignorance nor carelessness on
the part of the litigant or his attorney provide grounds for [reconsideration] relief under Rule