Mkhitaryan et al v. US Bancorp et al

Filing 83

ORDER that plaintiffs motion to reconsider 82 is GRANTED. This courts order denying the fourth motion to amend 78 is VACATED as to the denial of the fourth motion to amend 54 only. Plaintiffs shall have until close of business on Friday, Augus t 3, 2012, to file any reply in support of the motion seeking leave to file a fourth amended complaint 54 . The court is mindful of the possibility that plaintiffs may have included all of the arguments planned for the reply in their motion to reconsider; thus if no reply is filed by August 3, 2012, the court will treat the instant motion as a reply in support of the motion to amend. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 8/1/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

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

SERGEY MKHITARYAN and SUREN
MKHITARYAN,

2:11-CV-1055 JCM (CWH)

9
Plaintiffs,

10
11

v.

12

U.S. BANCORP, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is plaintiffs Sergey and Suren Mkhitaryan’s motion seeking

17

reconsideration of this court’s order (doc. #78) denying plaintiffs’ motion seeking leave to file a

18

fourth amended complaint. Doc. #82.

19

Motions for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.”

20

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). These circumstances are

21

present where “the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error,

22

or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Id. Plaintiffs motion argues that the

23

court committed clear error by ruling on the motion prior to their reply being due.

24

The court, having received no reply in support of the motion to amend by the July 16, 2012,

25

deadline, entered its order denying the motion on July 26, 2012. Plaintiffs have now brought to the

26

court’s attention that they previously stipulated to extend the reply deadline until July 30, 2012.

27

Accordingly, the court entered its order on the motion prior to it becoming ripe. Such a situation

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

satisfies the requirements and policies this court looks to in deciding whether to reconsider an order.

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs’ motion to

4

reconsider (doc. #82) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this court’s order denying the fourth motion to amend

6

(doc. #78) be, and the same hereby is, VACATED as to the denial of the fourth motion to amend

7

(doc. #54) only.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs shall have until close of business on Friday,

9

August 3, 2012, to file any reply in support of the motion seeking leave to file a fourth amended

10

complaint (doc. #54). The court is mindful of the possibility that plaintiffs may have included all

11

of the arguments planned for the reply in their motion to reconsider; thus if no reply is filed by

12

August 3, 2012, the court will treat the instant motion as a reply in support of the motion to amend.

13

DATED August 1, 2012.

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

-2-