Daprizio v. Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc. et al

Filing 45

ORDER Denying with prejudice 42 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 5/3/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

KIMBERLEY DAPRIZIO,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6

HARRAH’S LAS VEGAS, INC., et al.,
7
8

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:10-cv-00604-GMN-RJJ
ORDER

9
10

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF

11

No. 42), in which Defendants request that the Court amend its Order on Plaintiff’s Motion

12

for Reconsideration (ECF No. 41). Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 43), to which

13

Defendants replied (ECF No. 44).

14

Defendants’ Motion is not truly a Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to

15

Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as they are requesting amendment of an

16

interlocutory order, not a final judgment. Rather, Defendants are asking that the Court

17

reconsider and amend its earlier interlocutory Order. The Court may make such amendments

18

due to its “inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order

19

for cause seen by it to be sufficient,” City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper,

20

254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)

21

(stipulating that “any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer

22

than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the

23

action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a

24

judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities”).

25

However, there is no reason for the Court to reconsider its earlier Order in this

Page 1 of 2

1

instance. Defendants provide no new evidence, cite to no intervening change in controlling

2

law, and appear to be simply rearticulating the same arguments they briefed with regard to

3

the initial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration

4

(ECF No. 27). Consequently, Defendants’ inappropriately named Motion to Alter or Amend

5

Judgment will be DENIED with prejudice.

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment

7

(ECF No. 42) is DENIED with prejudice.

8

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2011.

9
10
11

________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2