Kessler v. Guanci et al

Filing 137

ORDER Denying 72 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/11/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

Salem Vegas, LP,

4

Plaintiff,

5

vs.

6

Anthony Guanci,

7

Defendant.

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-01892-GMN-CWH
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 72) filed by non-party

9
10

Palms Place, LLC (“Palms Place”), in objection to United States Magistrate Judge Carl W.

11

Hoffman’s September 30, 2013, Order (ECF No. 69) denying Palms Place’s Motion to Quash

12

Subpoena Issued to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff Salem Vegas, LP, filed a

13

Response (ECF No. 78).

14

I.

BACKGROUND

15

In February 2013, Palms Place filed its Motion to Quash Subpoena Issued to Wells

16

Fargo Bank, N.A. (ECF No. 29), after it had been voluntarily dismissed from the instant action.

17

Although the motion was originally granted for non-opposition, Judge Hoffman later vacated

18

that ruling and entered the instant Order denying the motion. (ECF No. 69.) As recited by

19

Judge Hoffman, Palms Place sought to quash a Rule 45 subpoena issued to Wells Fargo Bank,

20

N.A., requesting certain bank records and information in which Palms Place has an interest.

21

(Id.) In his Order, Judge Hoffman concluded that Palms Place did not have standing to bring its

22

motion to quash under Rule 45(c)(3)(A)(iii), also noting that Palms Place did not properly bring

23

its motion pursuant to Rule 45(c)(3)(B). (Id. at 4 & n.2.)

24
25

Now, Palms Place seeks review of Judge Hoffman’s Order pursuant to D.Nev. R. IB 3-1.
(ECF No. 72.)

Page 1 of 3

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Local Rules of Civil Practice for the District of Nevada, “[a] district judge

2
3

may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge in a civil or criminal case

4

pursuant to LR IB 1-3, where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s ruling is clearly

5

erroneous or contrary to law.” D.Nev. R. IB 3-1(a). “The district judge may affirm, reverse, or

6

modify, in whole or in part, the ruling made by the magistrate judge,” and “may also remand

7

the same to the magistrate judge with instructions.” D. Nev. R. IB 3-1(b).

8

III.

9

DISCUSSION
Here, Palms Place argues that Judge Hoffman’s ruling “is based upon a mistake in both

10

the facts and law,” and therefore “requests that it be overturned.” (Mot. Reconsider, 3:18-19,

11

ECF No. 72.)

12

Having reviewed the relevant briefs, the Court finds no clear error on the part of Judge

13

Hoffman in concluding that Palms Place failed to properly bring its motion pursuant to Rule

14

45(c)(3)(B). Because the applicable legal standard is vital to adjudication of a motion, a party

15

requesting relief from the Court is rightly held responsible for clearly articulating the legal

16

basis for the relief it requests. Where a party fails to “state with particularity the grounds for

17

seeking the order,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B), a judge commits no clear error in omitting

18

analysis of unspecified alternative grounds upon which a party might seek relief.

19

Furthermore, the Court cannot find that Judge Hoffman’s reliance upon the reasoning in

20

In re Rhodes Companies, LLC, 475 B.R. 733 (D.Nev. 2012), is contrary to law, particularly

21

where such reliance was based upon the opinion’s persuasive value. Accordingly, the Court

22

finds no grounds to overturn Judge Hoffman’s ruling on this basis. To the extent that Palms

23

Place argues that Judge Hoffman’s analysis, in relying upon In re Rhodes, is “at odds with the

24

numerous other courts that have addressed the issue as well as the Advisory Committee,” (Mot.

25

Reconsider, 12:8-10), the Court also finds no grounds to overturn Judge Hoffman’s ruling.

Page 2 of 3

1

Palms Place provides no citation to any controlling legal authority that indicates that Judge

2

Hoffman’s ruling is “contrary to law.”
Accordingly, the Court does not find that Judge Hoffman’s Order is “clearly erroneous

3
4

or contrary to law,” and will deny Palms Place’s motion.

5

IV.

CONCLUSION

6

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 72) is DENIED.

7

DATED this 11th day of July, 2014.

8
9
10
11

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 3 of 3