Anoruo v. Shinseki

Filing 36

ORDER Denying 31 Motion for Re-Examination. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 1/29/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

JOSEPH CHIDI ANORUO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ERIK K. SHINSEKI,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01190-JCM-GWF
ORDER
Motion to Reconsider (#31)

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Joseph Anoruo’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to

15

Reconsider (#31), filed on December 19, 2012. Defendant filed an Opposition (#32) on January 2,

16

2013. The time to file any reply expired on January 12, 2013. The Court entered an Order (#16)

17

denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Discovery (#6) on October 25, 2012. The Court entered an

18

Order (#19) granting Defendant’s Motion (#15) to strike Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply (#13) to Defendant’s

19

Motion to Dismiss (#4) on October 29, 2012. Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of these

20

Orders.

21

Courts “possess the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an

22

interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient” so long as it has jurisdiction. City of Los

23

Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001).

24

Reconsideration is appropriate if the court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)

25

committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening

26

change in controlling law.” United States Aviation Underwriters v. Wesair, LLC, 2010 WL

27

1462707, *2 (D. Nev. 2010) (citing School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5

28

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the

1

same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” In re AgriBioTech, Inc., 319

2

B.R. 207, 209 (D. Nev. 2004). Here, Plaintiff has not offered any new evidence, convinced the

3

Court its previous rulings were in clear error, or offered any intervening change in law that would

4

cause the Court to revisit its previous rulings. Rather, Plaintiff requests the court to reconsider on

5

the grounds of fundamental fairness and attempts to reargue the issues the Court has already ruled

6

upon. The Court therefore finds no basis to reconsider its previous Orders (#16, #19).

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Re-Examination (#31) is denied.

9

DATED this 29th day of January, 2013.

10
11
12

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2