Righthaven LLC v. Newman

Filing 34

ORDER Denying 23 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order Dated July 22, 2011. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 9/23/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

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

RIGHTHAVEN LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company,

2:10-CV-1762 JCM (PAL)

9
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

GARRY NEWMAN, et al,,

13

Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is plaintiff Righthaven LLC’s emergency motion to reconsider the

17

court’s order (doc. #22) granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.(Doc. # 23).

18

Defendant Newman filed an opposition. (Doc. #24). Plaintiff did not file a reply.

19

On July 22, 2011, the court entered an order granting defendant Newman’s motion to dismiss

20

(doc. #19). (Doc. #22). The court granted the motion to dismiss pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(b), based

21

on plaintiff’s failure to file a timely response by July 15, 2011 to defendant’s motion. In addition,

22

prior to dismissal, the court weighed the factors identified in Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th

23

Cir. 1995), and found dismissal to be appropriate.

24

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

25

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an

26

intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th

27

Cir. 1993); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

The plaintiff fails to present any new law, new facts, or new evidence indicating that any of

2

the circumstances enumerated by the Ninth Circuit are present here. In the present motion for

3

reconsideration, plaintiff asks this court to reconsider its order (doc. #22), due to the fact that

4

plaintiff filed a timely compliance with LR 7-2(b) through the submission of the first amended

5

complaint on July 15, 2011. However, the plaintiff’s first amended complaint was not filed until July

6

16, 2011. Therefore, plaintiffs failed to file a timely response to defendant’s motion to dismiss, and

7

this court correctly granted the motion accordingly.

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that plaintiff Righthaven, LLC’s

10

motion to reconsider the order dated July 22, 2011, (doc. # 23) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

11

DATED September 23, 2011.

12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-