Morton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDER Denying 37 Motion to Stay. Denying 39 Motion for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.s Bad Faith Conduct During Discovery. Denying 42 Motion for Entry of Clerks Default. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/11/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

LOURDES MARIA MORTON,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11

Case No. 2:12-cv-00155-MMD-NJK

WAL-MART STORES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

12

ORDER
(Plf.’s Request for Stay – dkt. no. 37;
Plf.’s Motion for Defendant Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.’s Bad Faith Conduct During
Discovery – dkt. no. 39;
Plf.’s Application for Default – dkt. no. 42)

13
14

I.

SUMMARY

15

Before the Court are Plaintiff Lourdes Maria Morton’s Request for Stay (dkt. no.

16

37), Motion for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Bad Faith Conduct During Discovery

17

(dkt. no. 39), and Application for Default (dkt. no. 42). For the reasons set forth below,

18

Morton’s Motions are denied.

19

II.

BACKGROUND

20

Morton filed her Complaint on January 30, 2012, against Defendants Wal-Mart,

21

Claims Management, Inc., and Arkansas Claims Management, Inc., for injuries arising

22

out of a slip and fall in a San Bernardino, California Wal-Mart store. Morton alleges that

23

on February 13, 2010, she slipped and fell on a “slippery, gel-like substance” while

24

inside the store and sustained injuries as a result. (Dkt. no. 1 at ¶ 4.) Morton brought

25

two claims, one for negligence and the other for “loss of care, society, companionship,

26

support and consortium of her spouse.” (Id. at ¶¶ 5-10.)

27
28

On February 12, 2012, the Court granted Wal-Mart’s Second Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Dkt. no. 29.) Thereafter, Morton filed the instant Motions.

Morton’s Request for Stay appears to seek reconsideration of the Court’s

1
2

February 12, 2012, Order.

Having failed to present newly discovered evidence,

3

demonstrate that the Court committed clear error in its ruling, or that an intervening

4

change in the controlling law occurred, Morton’s request to reconsider the Court’s Order

5

fails. See Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880

6

(9th Cir. 2009) (describing standard for motions to reconsider).

7

Morton’s second Motion complains about Wal-Mart’s alleged misconduct during

8

discovery. As the Court has rendered judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, the Court lacks the

9

authority to entertain discovery disputes that should have been filed in the form of a

10

motion during the course of discovery.

11

Lastly, Morton’s Application for Default seeks default judgment against

12

Defendants Claims Management, Inc. and Arkansas Claims Management, Inc.

13

(collectively “Claims Management Defendants”). Morton’s request for default was filed

14

two days after both Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss. (See dkt. no. 38.)

15

Accordingly, Morton’s Application must be denied. Morton is advised that per Local Rule

16

7-2(b), her response to Claims Management Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is due by

17

March 21, 2013.

18

III.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Stay (dkt. no. 37) is

DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.’s Bad Faith Conduct During Discovery (dkt. no. 39) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application for Default (dkt. no. 42) is
DENIED.
DATED THIS 11th day of March 2013.

26
27
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2