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)

Download PDF
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

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?