90 Treasure Island opposition.pdf
100 NORTH CITY PARKWAY, SUITE 1600
LAS VEGAS, NV 89106
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Case 2:12-cv-00239-KJD -RJJ Document 90
Filed 07/13/12 Page 7 of 12
As noted above, a motion for reconsideration should be denied "absent highly unusual
circumstances." Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 571 F.3d at 880. That is, in application, a grant of a
motion to reconsider should be a rare occurrence. Plaintiff now argues that, "the equities of this
matter justify the setting aside of the [Dismissal Order]."
However, regardless of who was at fault for Plaintiff's failure to respond to the Motion to
Dismiss, there are no "equities" at stake here for Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Has Plainly Disobeyed the Applicable Rules.
Motion to Reconsider, 4:15-16.
In the context of requests to revisit a previous decision, "[t]here must be some obedience
to the rules of court; and some respect shown to the convenience and rights of other counsel,
litigants, and the court itself." Smith v. Stone, 308 F.2d 15, 18 (9th Cir. 1962). In the instant case,
Plaintiff failed to obey the rules of the Court, and its last-ditch Motion to Reconsider shows
disrespect to the Treasure Island Defendants, their undersigned counsel, and this Court. The
Treasure Island Defendants were dismissed from this action months ago. Plaintiff should not be
afforded an opportunity to simply lay its failures at the feet of its previous pro hac vice counsel –
despite continuing to be represented by the same local counsel – and then reopen its attack on the
Treasure Island Defendants without consequence. The Motion to Reconsider should be denied.
The Dismissal Order Was Warranted In Any Event.
Even leaving aside for a moment the egregious failure to timely respond to the Motion to
Dismiss, the Dismissal Order was warranted in any event, further underscoring that there is no
need for its reconsideration. In their Motion to Dismiss, the Treasure Island Defendants laid out a
host of grounds – other than failure to oppose – upon which Plaintiff's Complaint should have
connected any karaoke DJ to the Treasure Island Defendants.
aggregated all the named defendants' conduct into generalities, and the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure clearly bar such tactics.
obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief' requires more than labels and
conclusions"); see also Jackson v. Nelson, 405 F.2d 872, 873 (9th Cir. 1968) (affirming dismissal
where the complaint did not specify which defendants took which actions); Lincoln v. Silverstein,
Importantly, in its Complaint, Plaintiff failed to allege any conduct that
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (holding that "a plaintiff's