Greene v. Executive Coach & Carriage

Filing 229

ORDER Denying 207 Defendants' Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/9/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

ROBERT G. GREENE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5

vs.

6
7

JACOB TRANSPORTATION SERVICES,
LLC, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:09-cv-00466-GMN-CWH
ORDER

10

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 207) filed by Defendants

11
12

Carol Jimmerson, James Jimmerson, and Jacob Transportation Services, LLC (collectively

13

“Defendants”). Plaintiffs Robert G. Greene, Thomas Schemkes, and Gregory Green

14

(collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a Response (ECF No. 212), and Defendants filed a Reply (ECF

15

No. 217).

16

I.

BACKGROUND
On December 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Serve by Publication. (Mot. to Serve

17
18

by Pub., ECF No. 205). Shortly thereafter, Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman granted

19

Plaintiffs’ Motion. (Order, ECF No. 206). Defendants subsequently filed the instant Motion

20

(ECF No. 207) to reconsider Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s Order.

21

II.

22

LEGAL STANDARD
Local Rule IB 3–1 provides that “[a] district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter

23

referred to a magistrate judge in a civil . . . case . . . where it has been shown that the magistrate

24

judge’s ruling is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” A ruling is clearly erroneous if the

25

reviewing court is left with “a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

Page 1 of 2

1

Burdick v. C.I.R., 979 F.2d 1369, 1370 (9th Cir. 1992). The district judge may affirm, reverse,

2

modify, or remand with instructions the ruling made by the magistrate judge. LR IB 3–1(b).

3

III.

4

DISCUSSION
Defendants argue that “the Magistrate Judge’s Order granting the motion to serve by

5

publication should be vacated/denied, as the Defendants have not avoided service of process

6

and the motion asserting such failed to actually make such required showing.” (Mot. to Recons.

7

4:19–21, ECF No. 207). However, after Defendants filed the instant Motion, Plaintiffs

8

successfully served Defendants. (Aff. of Service, ECF No. 210; Acceptance of Service, ECF

9

No. 211; see also Reply 2:10–11, ECF No. 217). As a result, service by publication is no

10

longer necessary. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion requesting

11

reconsideration of Judge Hoffman’s Order as moot.

12

IV.

13
14
15

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 207) is

DENIED.
DATED this __9___ day of June, 2016.

16
17

___________________________________

18

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2