Russell Sigler, Inc. v. Associated Mechanical, Inc. et al

Filing 49

ORDER Denying 46 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 5/2/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 *** 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT for ) the use and benefit of RUSSELL SIGLER, ) INC., a New Mexico corporation, d.b.a. Sigler, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) ASSOCIATED MECHANICAL, INC., a ) Nevada corporation; AMERIND BUILDERS, ) LLC, an Arizona corporation; E.C. ) SCARBOROUGH, an individual surety, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No.: 2:09-cv-01238-RLH-GWF ORDER (Motion for Reconsideration–#46) 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Russell Sigler, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration 20 21 (#46, filed Dec. 16, 2010). The Court has also considered Defendants Amerind Builders, LLC and 22 E.C. Scarborough’s Opposition (#47, filed Jan. 3, 2011), and Sigler’s Reply (#48, filed Jan. 5, 23 2011) 24 This dispute arises out of Sigler’s allegations that Defendants failed to pay Sigler 25 for services that it performed on a construction project at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, 26 Nevada. The Court directs the reader to its previous order (#45) for the procedural and factual AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 1 1 background of this case. On December 8, 2010, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for 2 summary judgment as to Sigler’s payment bond claim (Dkt. #45, Order). Sigler subsequently filed 3 a motion for reconsideration of this Order. For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies 4 Sigler’s motion. 5 A motion for reconsideration must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason 6 why the court should revisit its prior order, and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing nature” 7 in support of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 8 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration may be appropriate if the district court: (1) is presented with 9 newly discovered evidence, (2) has committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 10 unjust, or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 11 805, 807–08 (9th Cir. 2004). “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting 12 reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th 13 Cir. 1993). On the other hand, motions for reconsideration are not “the proper vehicles for 14 rehashing old arguments,” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F.Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D. Tex. 15 1994) (footnotes omitted). 16 Sigler’s motion seeks clarification of the Court’s December 8 Order, which granted 17 summary judgment against Sigler’s payment bond claim. Sigler argues that the Order is 18 ambiguous with regard to whether the Court disposed of the payment bond claim in its entirety or 19 only as it pertains to E.C. Scarborough. The Court clarifies that it disposed of the payment bond 20 claim in its entirety. As stated in the Order, the Bond and its integrated Certificate of Pledged 21 Assets unambiguously state that the Bond was to be terminated no later than November 16, 2008. 22 Therefore, because Sigler performed its services on the construction project in December 2008, 23 after the bond expired, the Bond does not cover Sigler’s performance. Sigler presents nothing new 24 in this motion—other than its own interpretation of the Bond—that changes the Court’s analysis. 25 Therefore, the Court disposes of Sigler’s payment bond claim (its second cause of action) in its 26 entirety. Accordingly, the Court denies Sigler’s motion for reconsideration. AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 2 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, and for good cause appearing, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Sigler’s Motion for Reconsideration (#46) is 4 5 DENIED. Dated: May 2, 2011 6 ____________________________________ ROGER L. HUNT Chief United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?