Lo v. ETT Gaming et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 76 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 10/6/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
***
4
5
6
7

Case No. 2:12-cv-01887-APG-PAL
YUNG LO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ETT GAMING, et al.,

8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
(ECF No. 76)

Defendants.

9
10

Plaintiff Yung Lo moves for reconsideration of my prior order dismissing her complaint.

11

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered

12

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is

13

an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS,

14

Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). A district court also may reconsider its decision if “other,

15

highly unusual, circumstances” warrant it. Id.

16

Lo does not identify any change in the law or newly discovered evidence to support

17

reconsideration. She has not shown my prior order was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust.

18

Nor are there any highly unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration. Despite numerous

19

opportunities, Lo did not file an amended complaint as directed. Even her motion for

20

reconsideration does not attach a proposed amended complaint. Lo thus presents no basis to

21

reconsider.

22
23
24

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff Yung Lo’s motion for reconsideration
(ECF No. 76) is DENIED.
DATED this 6th day October, 2016.

25
26
27
28

ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE