90 Treasure Island opposition.pdf
Case 2:12-cv-00239-KJD -RJJ Document 90
60(b)(1)." Engelson v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 1043 (9th Cir. 1992)
(quoting Kagan v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 795 F.2d 601, 607 (7th Cir. 1986)).
reconsideration is unwarranted inasmuch as an attorney's alleged neglect does not amount to the
requisite "highly unusual circumstances, . . . newly discovered evidence, . . . clear error, or . . .
intervening change in . . . law."
carelessness is not a "valid reason" for reconsideration. As Plaintiff provides no other reason,
valid or otherwise, why the Court should reconsider the Dismissal Order, the Motion to
Reconsider should be denied.
100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1600
LAS VEGAS, NV 89106
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Filed 07/13/12 Page 6 of 12
Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880.
The Motion to Reconsider Contains No "Strongly Convincing" New Facts or Law.
Plaintiff admits in its Motion to Reconsider that, as early as April 3, 2012, or four days
following the filing of the Treasure Island Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff's owner Kurt
Slep, "discovered" that Plaintiff's former counsel was missing deadlines. Motion to Reconsider,
2:6-8. Plaintiff further admits that its previous counsel's deadline to respond to the Motion to
Dismiss had to be "twice extended by stipulation and order". Id., 2:25. Plaintiff further admits
that its previous counsel did not file any response at all to the Motion to Dismiss until fifty-two
days after the Motion to Dismiss was filed, "12 days after the twice-extended deadline, and
without a further extension of time." Id., 2:27-28. And, though unacknowledged by Plaintiff in
the Motion to Reconsider, it is also worth noting that Plaintiff waited another thirty-six days after
the Dismissal Order was entered before filing even the Motion to Reconsider.
Plaintiff's own allegations and admissions in the Motion to Reconsider hardly amount to
the required "facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior
decision." Frasure, 256 F.Supp.2d at 1183. Rather, the Motion to Reconsider itself demonstrates
that, despite being given every opportunity to appropriately respond to the Motion to Dismiss,
and despite having ample information suggesting its previous counsel had timeliness issues,
Plaintiff nevertheless failed to oppose the Motion to Dismiss in a timely fashion. Pursuant to
District of Nevada Local Rule 7-2(d), this Court properly attributed Plaintiff's consent to granting
the Motion to Dismiss, and reconsideration of the Dismissal Order is therefore entirely