Newman v. Corner Investment Company, LLC et al

Filing 94

ORDER that defendant International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 501, AFL-CIOs motion for reconsideration 86 and defendant Corner Investment Company, LLCs motion for reconsideration 87 are GRANTED. The union and Corner shall re-file the ir motions for summary judgment 32 50 in conformance with standard CM/ECF filing procedures. Corners motion for leave to supplement joint exhibits in support of summary judgment 88 is GRANTED. Corner shall supplement the joint exhibits in confo rmance with standard CM/ECF filing procedures. The joint exhibits must comply fully with the authentication requirements of Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 2002). Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/6/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

WATSON NEWMAN,

9

2:10-CV-550 JCM (GWF)

Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

CORNER INVESTMENT COMPANY,
LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court are defendant International Union of Operating Engineers Local

17

No. 501, AFL-CIO’s (“the union”) motion for reconsideration (doc. #86) and defendant Corner

18

Investment Company, LLC’s (“Corner”) motion for reconsideration (doc. #87). Plaintiff Watson

19

Newman filed an opposition. (Doc. #89). Defendants then filed replies. (Docs. #92 and #93). Also

20

before the court is Corner’s motion for leave to supplement joint exhibits in support of summary

21

judgment. (Doc. #88).

22

On December 9, 2011, the court denied the union’s motion for summary judgment without

23

prejudice. (Doc. #83). The union’s motion and reply briefs suffered from numerous CM/ECF filing

24

deficiencies, and the court declined to attempt to “cobble together an understandable version” of the

25

union’s motion. (Doc. #83). At that time, Corner had also filed a motion for summary judgment

26

supported by defendants’ joint exhibits. (Doc. #50). After the court denied the union’s motion for

27

summary judgment, Corner resubmitted defendants’ joint exhibits to correct any CM/ECF filing

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

deficiencies. (Doc. #84).

2

The court held a hearing on Corner’s motion for summary judgment on December 14, 2011.

3

(Doc. #85). At the hearing, the court denied Corner’s motion, finding that Corner’s supporting

4

exhibits were not properly authenticated pursuant to Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir.

5

2002). (Docs. #85 and #91). The court stated that defendants could file a motion for reconsideration

6

of the orders denying defendants’ motions for summary judgment.

7

This court has “inherent power” to reconsider an order over which it maintains jurisdiction.

8

See City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2001);

9

see also Marconnie Wireless Tel. Co. v. United States, 320 U.S. 1, 47 (1943); FED. R. CIV. P. 60.

10

Good cause appearing,

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that defendant International

12

Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 501, AFL-CIO’s motion for reconsideration (doc. #86) and

13

defendant Corner Investment Company, LLC’s motion for reconsideration (doc. #87) be, and the

14

same hereby are, GRANTED.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the union and Corner shall re-file their motions for

16

summary judgment (docs. #32 and #50) in conformance with standard CM/ECF filing procedures.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Corner’s motion for leave to supplement joint exhibits in

18

support of summary judgment (doc. #88) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. Corner shall

19

supplement the joint exhibits in conformance with standard CM/ECF filing procedures. The joint

20

exhibits must comply fully with the authentication requirements of Orr v. Bank of America, 285 F.3d

21

764 (9th Cir. 2002).

22

DATED March 6, 2012.

23
24
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-