Rhodes-Lyons v. United States of America et al

Filing 39

ORDER Denying 32 Plaintiff's Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 4/13/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - cc: USCA - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

DIANE L. RHODES-LYONS,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

13

Defendants.

2:11-cv-1906-LRH-CWH
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is plaintiff Diane L. Rhodes-Lyons (“Rhodes-Lyons”) motion for

16

reconsideration of the court’s order granting defendant the United States of America’s (“United

17

States”) motion for summary judgment (Doc. #301). Doc. #32. The United States filed an

18

opposition (Doc. #33) to which Rhodes-Lyons replied (Doc. #34).

19

I.

20

Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff Rhodes-Lyons owes undisputed back taxes for the tax years 2003-2008 in the

21

amount of $28,287.88. On September 4, 2009, Rhodes-Lyons entered into an agreement with the

22

United States in which she would pay $583 a month until her back tax obligations were satisfied.

23

This agreement was documented on a Form 9297 Summary of Taxpayer Contract. Doc. #7,

24

Exhibit 2.

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket entry number.

1

Rhodes-Lyons made two successive payments, but before she could pay her third

2

installment she was served with a notice of levy on wages, salary, and other income. During the

3

levy, Rhodes-Lyons moved out of her apartment and gave away various personal property and

4

furniture.

5

On February 7, 2012, Rhodes-Lyon filed a complaint against the United States challenging

6

the levy on her wages, and bank accounts, and alleging that the levy caused economic damages

7

including the loss of personal property and furniture. Doc. #7. In response, the United States filed a

8

motion for summary judgment (Doc. #23) which was granted by the court (Doc. #30). Thereafter,

9

Rhodes-Lyons filed the present motion for reconsideration. Doc. #32.

10

II.

11

Discussion
A motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

12

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,

13

229 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 59(e) provides that a district court may reconsider a prior

14

order where the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, an intervening change of

15

controlling law, manifest injustice, or where the prior order was clearly erroneous. FED. R. CIV. P.

16

59(e); see also United States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998); School Dist. No. 1J,

17

Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

18

The court has reviewed the documents and pleadings on file in this matter and finds that

19

reconsideration of the court’s prior order is not warranted. In her motion, Rhodes-Lyons simply

20

states the court’s order was in error without identifying any legal or factual basis for her claim.

21

Further, Rhodes-Lyons cites to several federal statutes that have no bearing on the present action.

22

As such, Rhodes-Lyons has failed to identify any actual error in the court’s prior order.

23

Accordingly, the court shall deny her motion for reconsideration.

24

///

25

///

26

2

1
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Doc. #32) is
DENIED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

DATED this 13th day of April, 2013.

5
6
7

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3