Thompson v. United States et al

Filing 20

ORDER Denying 19 Motion to Withdraw Order Granting Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 8/23/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
DALE A. THOMPSON,
8
9
10
11
12
13

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-01659-RCJ-CWH
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Order Granting Extension of

14

Time (#19), filed August 22, 2013. Plaintiff asks the Court to withdraw its prior order granting

15

Defendants a limited ten (10) day extension of time to file a responsive pleading. See Order (#17).

16

It appears Plaintiff is seeking reconsideration of a prior order under Federal Rule of Civil

17

Procedure 60(b). The grounds for reconsideration can normally be divided into three primary

18

categories: (1) newly discovered evidence; (2) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest

19

injustice; or (3) an intervening change in controlling law. See e.g. School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5

20

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting an

21

unsuccessful party to reiterate arguments previously presented. See Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252,

22

255 (9th Cir.1995); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1136 (S.D.Cal.2001) (“A party cannot have

23

relief under this rule merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”).

24

The Court may also exercise its inherent power to revise, correct, and alter interlocutory orders

25

at any time prior to entry of a final judgment. See Sch. Dist. No. 5 v. Lundgren, 259 F.2d 101, 105 (9th

26

Cir. 1958); Santamarina v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 466 F.3d 570, 571-72 (7th Cir. 2006). This authority

27

is governed by the doctrine that a court will generally not reexamine an issue previously decided by the

28

same or higher court in the same case. Lucas Auto. Eng'g, Inc. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 275 F.3d
762, 766 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998). However, a

1

court has discretion to depart from the prior order when (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous, (2)

2

there has been an intervening change of law, (3) the evidence on remand is substantially different, (4)

3

other changed circumstances exist, or (5) a manifest injustice would otherwise result. Cuddy, 147 F.3d

4

at 1114. A motion for reconsideration is properly denied when the movant fails to establish any reason

5

justifying relief. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1985).

6

The reasons presented by Plaintiff in support of his request are: (1) he was not contacted in a

7

timely manner regarding the extension; (2) he did not have an opportunity to respond; and (3) there is

8

not good cause for the extension because defense counsel could have another person assist in filing the

9

response. None of these reasons is sufficient for withdrawal of the prior order. The motion to extend

10

time was filed before expiration of the time period to file a responsive pleading. The motion was

11

reviewed and granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A), which provides that “for good cause” the

12

Court may extend time to complete an act “with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or the

13

request is made, before the original time for its extension expires.” The Court may grant a timely

14

motion to extend under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) with or without notice. It is not required that a non-moving

15

party be contacted prior to an extension being granted under Rule 6(b)(1)(A). It is not required that a

16

non-moving party be given notice prior to the court taking action on a timely request under Rule

17

6(b)(1)(A). It is required that there be good cause for the extension. As previously held, Defendants’

18

counsel clearly demonstrated good cause for the limited ten (10) day extension. Accordingly,

19
20
21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Order Granting Extension of
Time (#19) is denied.
Dated: August 23, 2013.

22
23
24

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

25
26
27
28
2