Liberty Mutual Insurance Group v. Panelized Structures, Inc.

Filing 215

ORDER Denying 202 Defendant's Motion to Amend/Correct Clerk's Judgment. This third attempt to convince the Court to rescind its prior Order is inappropriate and a waste of judicial resources. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

15
16

ORDER

PANELIZED STRUCTURES, INC., ET AL.,

(Def.’s Motion to Amend/Correct Clerk’s
Judgment – dkt. no. 202)

Defendants.

13
14

Case No. 2:10-cv-01951-MMD-PAL

PANELIZED STRUCTURES, INC.,
Counterclaimant,
v.

18

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP,
LM INSURANCE CORPORATION, and
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
GROUP/BOSTON,

19

Counterdefendants.

17

20

PANELIZED STRUCTURES, INC.,

21
22
23
24
25
26

Third-Party Plaintiff,
v.
ARIZONA LABOR FORCE, INC., an
Arizona corporation, dba ALLIED FORCES
TEMPORARY SERVICES,
Third-Party Defendant.
Before the Court is Defendant Panelized Structures, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to

27

Amend/Correct Clerk’s Judgment. (Dkt. no. 202.)

Although the title of Defendant’s

28

Motion suggests that Defendant seeks the correction of an inaccuracy within the Clerk’s

1

Judgment, Defendant actually moves the Court to reconsider its prior Order (dkt. no. 89),

2

in which the Court dismissed Defendant’s counterclaims. Defendant has previously filed

3

a Motion for Reconsideration relating to this Order (dkt. no. 90), which the Court denied

4

(dkt. no. 112). Defendant also filed a separate lawsuit advancing the same theories

5

presented in that Motion for Reconsideration and in the instant Motion. (Panelized

6

Structures, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Group et al., No. 2:12-cv-00264-MMD-PAL, Dkt.

7

No. 1.) That suit was dismissed by the Court’s Order entered March 15, 2013. (Id. at

8

dkt. no. 41.)

9
10
11

This third attempt to convince the Court to rescind its prior Order is inappropriate
and a waste of judicial resources. The Defendant’s Motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

DATED THIS 19th day of June 2013.

14
15

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2