Wang v. US Bank, NA et al

Filing 21

ORDER Denying 19 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 12/9/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
10

GRACE WANG,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

Case No. 2:10-CV-01741-KJD-PAL

US BANK, NA, et al.,

14

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16

Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration (#19) of Plaintiff Grace Wang.

17

Defendant US Bank and CCB Libor Series 2005-1 Trust (“Defendants”) have filed an opposition

18

(#20).

19
20
21

The background of this case is set forth fully in the Court’s June 7, 2009 Order (#17) granting
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that Order.
A Plaintiff may seek reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ P. 59(e) or 60(b). However, this

22

type of relief is warranted only if “extraordinary circumstances” exist. Maraziti v. Thorp, 52 F.3d

23

252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995), citing Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-201, 71 S.Ct. 209,

24

212-13, 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950); Waggoner v. R. McGray, Inc., 743 F.2d 643, 645 (9th Cir.1984). A

25

motion for reconsideration should not merely present arguments previously raised; that is, a motion

26

for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to reiterate arguments

1

previously presented. See Maraziti, at 52 F.3d 255; Beentjes v. Placer County Air Pollution Control

2

District, 254 F.Supp.2d 1159, at 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2003). In order for a party to demonstrate clear

3

error, the moving party’s arguments cannot be the same as those made earlier. See Glavor v.

4

Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 1028, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 1994).

5

Plaintiff’s single paragraph motion argues that Plaintiff’s Complaint stated a claim that was

6

“apparently not ... conveyed with the upmost clarity.” Plaintiff then provides a summary of the

7

argument previously made in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court understood Plaintiff’s

8

claim and explained the reasons for granting the Motion to Dismiss in its June 7, 2009 Order (#17).

9

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration does not cite any law or rule showing grounds for

10

reconsideration. Reconsideration should not be granted to a party “merely because he or she is

11

unhappy with the judgment.” Khan v. Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001)

12
13
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (#19)
is DENIED.
DATED this 9th day of December 2011.

15
16
17
18

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2