Hall v. Schumacher et al

Filing 70

ORDER Denying 62 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/14/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

DEBBIE HALL,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
CAROL SCHUMACHER, KAILEE DIAZ,
)
KELLY NEWMAN, DIANE CAMARDELLA, )
SAMANTHA MILLER, JOHN CROCKER,
)
STEPHANIE CALACAL, IBEW PLUS CREDIT )
UNION, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Debbie Hall’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF

12
13

Case No.: 2:10-cv-01353-GMN-PAL

No. 62). Defendants filed a Response (ECF NO. 63) and Plaintiff filed a Reply (ECF No. 64).
On April 4, 2012, this Court entered its Order (ECF No. 59) granting summary judgment

14
15

in favor of Defendants and closing the case. Plaintiff filed a timely motion to reconsider that

16

order.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

As Plaintiff recognizes in her motion, the legal standard governing motions for relief
from a judgment or order provides:
On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative
from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have
been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Page 1 of 2

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b).

2

Here, after consideration of the motion and accompanying briefs, the Court finds that

3

Plaintiff has presented no grounds justifying relief from the Court’s Order. Accordingly, the

4

motion will be denied.

5
6
7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 62) is
DENIED.
DATED this 14th day of June, 2012.

8
9

_________________________
Gloria M. Navarro
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2