Anoruo v. Shinseki

Filing 98

ORDER Denying 94 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 9/17/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

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 (#94)

13
14

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

15

Reconsider (#94), filed on September 5, 2013. On August 27, 2013, the Court granted, among

16

others, Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions (#50) and Motion to Strike Sur-reply (#82). See Order,

17

Doc. #88. Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order (#88) as regards the granting of

18

those two Motions (#50, #82).

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

cause the Court to revisit its previous rulings. Rather, Plaintiff attempts to reargue the issues the

3

Court has already ruled upon. Plaintiff further attempts to raise arguments he presented in his now-

4

stricken sur-reply (#77). The Court therefore finds no basis to reconsider its previous Order (#88).

5

Alternatively, Plaintiff moves for certification under Rule 54(b). Rule 54(b) provides that

6

when an action “presents more than one claim for relief [...] the court may direct entry of a final

7

judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims [...] only if the court expressly determines

8

that there is no just reason for delay.” To determine whether Rule 54(b) certification is appropriate,

9

a court “must first determine that it is dealing with a ‘final judgment’” that disposes of a cognizable

10

claim for relief. Curtiss–Wright Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). The Court finds

11

here it is not “dealing with a final judgment,” as the Court’s Order (#88) disposed of no claims for

12

relief. Accordingly,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (#94) is denied.

14

DATED this 17th day of September, 2013.

15
16
17

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2