Igbinovia, v. Catholic Healthcare West, et al.,

Filing 85

ORDER Granting in part and denying in part 79 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order re 77 Order on Motion to Dismiss. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/6/2011. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 8/4/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4
5

EGHOMWARE IGBINOVIA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

6
7
8
9
10

CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST, et
al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:07-cv-01170-GMN-PAL
ORDER

INTRODUCTION

11

Before the Court is Defendants Catholic Healthcare West, et al.’s Motion to Reconsider

12

(ECF No. 79). Plaintiff Eghomware Igbinovia filed a Response on January 19, 2011 (ECF No.

13

81) and Defendants filed a Reply on January 28, 2011 (ECF No. 82).

14
15
16

For the following reasons the Court DENIES the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 79).
BACKGROUND AND FACTS
This case arises out of a claim of employment discrimination. This lawsuit has been

17

pending in this Federal District Court for almost four years and has had a complicated and

18

confusing procedural history. Relevant to the instant motion are the following procedural facts.

19

Plaintiff was given leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) by the Court on

20

July 16, 2008 (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff alleges five causes of action in his complaint: (1) unlawful

21

discrimination employment action, (2) retaliation, (3) wrongful termination, (4) intentional

22

infliction of emotional distress, and (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress. Defendants

23

filed an Answer to the SAC on July 28, 2008 (ECF No. 29).

24
25

After almost a year of litigation and discovery, Defendants filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on June 29, 2009 (ECF No. 48). Defendants moved the court to grant

Page 1 of 4

1

summary judgment in their favor for the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional

2

distress claims as well as the claim for front and back pay. This Court granted the motion for

3

partial summary judgment in Defendants’ favor (ECF No. 61). Following the issuance of that

4

order, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 70). This Court denied the motion to

5

dismiss because Plaintiff had alleged facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted

6

under the Rule 8(a)(2) pleading requirement.

7

Defendants filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration, requesting that the Court

8

reconsider the original motion to dismiss under the motion for summary judgment standard.

9

The Court reconsiders its prior ruling and again denies Defendants’ motion.
ANALYSIS

10
11

Under Rule 60(b)(1), a court may “[on] motion and just terms . . . relieve a party . . . from

12

a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

13

neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and (b)(1). Whether mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

14

neglect justifies relief in any particular case is within the discretion of the district court. See

15

United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). The

16

determination turns on the particular facts of each case, and the case law is generally only

17

helpful by analogy to rulings on existing fact patterns. 12 MOORE, FEDERAL PRACTICE §

18

60.41[1][a] (3d ed. 2008).

19

“A motion to reconsider must provide a court with valid grounds for reconsideration by

20

(1) showing some valid reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision, and (2) setting

21

forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior

22

decision.” Frasure v. U.S., 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D.Nev. 2003)(citing All Hawaii Tours

23

Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 116 F.R.D. 645, 648 – 49 (D.Haw. 1987), rev’d on other

24

grounds, 855 F.2d 860 (1988)). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is

25

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

Page 2 of 4

1

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Id. (citing School

2

Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993)).

3

Defendants contend that the Court should reconsider its denial of the motion to dismiss

4

because they made a mistake in filing a motion to dismiss instead of a motion for summary

5

judgment. The court does find that there was a mistake but not the same mistake to which

6

Defendants are referring. The Court should never have addressed the motion to dismiss as it

7

was filed well after the deadline to file dispositive motions. Pursuant to the stipulated discovery

8

plan filed by the parties and approved by the Court on December 17, 2008, discovery was

9

scheduled to end on May 29, 2009. (ECF No. 37) According to that discovery order, the parties

10

had until June 29, 2009 to file dispositive motions which was in accord with Local Rule 26-

11

1(e)(4) which typically sets the dispositive motions deadline 30 days after the close of

12

discovery. (Id.) Any modifications to the discovery plan were required to be made not more

13

than twenty days before the discovery cut-off date and would need to comply fully with Local

14

Rule 26-4. (Id.)

15

Defendants made the choice to file a motion for partial summary judgment on the last day

16

available to them under the discovery order and local rule. Therefore, Defendants’ decision to

17

file a motion for only a partial summary judgment on the last available day precluded them from

18

seeking further relief on a later date. Defendants failed to request an extension to file an

19

additional dispositive motion or leave to file a late dispositive motion. Therefore, any

20

dispositive motion filed after the deadline in the scheduling order (whether styled as a motion to

21

dismiss or motion for summary judgment) can be denied solely on the ground that it was

22

untimely. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 608-069 (9th Cir. 1992).

23

Therefore, the Court should not have addressed the motion to dismiss.

24
25

While this procedural mistake has caused much wasted time and expense to both parties
the Court cautions that this could have been avoided. For example, the Court discovered that

Page 3 of 4

1

Defendants had never filed an answer to the second amended complaint. Defendants filed an

2

answer to the first amended complaint on July 28, 2008 (ECF No. 29), however the Court

3

granted Plaintiff’s motion to file a second amended complaint on July 16, 2008 (ECF No. 28).

4

Thereafter, Defendants never filed an answer to Plaintiff’s claims for intentional and negligent

5

infliction of emotional distress. The Defendants are fortunate that the Court did not address this

6

when they filed their motion for partial summary judgment. However, it also appears that

7

Plaintiff failed to notice this or at least did not bring it to the attention of the Court. The Court is

8

not going to revisit every procedural discrepancy and dispute that has occurred in this case.

9

Suffice it to say that this matter has been pending for almost four years and it is now time for it

10

to proceed to trial. While Defendants do have a compelling argument that Plaintiff will not be

11

able to prove his case at trial, Defendant’s litigation decisions have created a procedural bar

12

which prevents the Court from further addressing this issue. Therefore, the Court is ordering the

13

parties to submit a joint pretrial order by September 6, 2011.
CONCLUSION

14
15
16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Catholic Healthcare West, et al.’s Motion to
Reconsider (ECF No. 79) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

17

The Court does reconsider its previous Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF

18

No. 70). The Court determines that it should have never considered Defendants’ motion as it

19

was filed after the dispositive motions deadline stated in the scheduling Order. The Court

20

DENIES Defendants’ requested relief to dismiss this case.

21
22
23
24
25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a joint pretrial order by
September 6, 2011.
DATED this 4th day of August, 2011.
________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge
Page 4 of 4