Patel v. Smith

Filing 146

ORDER that 143 Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 3/9/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
9
10
11
12
13

DEBRA JENE PATEL-JULSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
PAUL SMITH LAS VEGAS, INC,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01023-CWH
ORDER

14
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Third Motion to Reopen (#143), filed March 2,
15
2015. This is Plaintiff’s third motion to reopen and, like the previous requests, will be denied. Other
16
than expressing disagreement with the Court’s decision, Plaintiff has not presented any legitimate basis
17
to reopen this case under either Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. A motion for
18
reconsideration is properly denied when the movant fails to establish any reason justifying relief.
19
Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1985); see also Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252,
20
255 (9th Cir.1995); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1136 (S.D.Cal.2001) (“A party cannot have
21
relief under this rule merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”). Disagreeing or being
22
unhappy with the decision is not adequate grounds to reopen the case or reconsider the order on
23
summary judgment. Accordingly,
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen (#143) is denied.
25
DATED: March 9, 2015.
26
27
28

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge