Torres v. Deutsche Bank AG et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 30 Motion for reconsideration. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/18/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

Jesus B. Torres,

4

Plaintiff,
vs.

5
6

Deutsche Bank, AG; Loop Capital Markets,
LLP; and Wells Fargo Bank,

7
Defendants,

8

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-00363-GMN-NJK
ORDER

9
10

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 30) filed by Plaintiff

11

Jesus B. Torres, to which Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) has filed an

12

Response (ECF No. 31). Plaintiff did not file a Reply, and the deadline to do so has expired.

13

I.

14

BACKGROUND
Proceeding pro se, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in early 2013, and Wells Fargo removed

15

the action to this Court on March 5, 2013. (ECF No. 1.) Wells Fargo then filed a Motion to

16

Dismiss (ECF No. 6) that was granted by the Court on July 2, 2013, with leave to amend by

17

July 15, 2013. (ECF No. 25.) In its Order, the Court warned Plaintiff that failure to do so by

18

the deadline would result in dismissal of the action with prejudice. (Id.) Plaintiff failed to file

19

an amended Complaint or to take any other action within the deadline set by the Court, and on

20

July 19, 2013, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice (ECF No. 26) and the Clerk

21

entered judgment accordingly (ECF No. 27), closing the case.

22

Three months later, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 30) along

23

with a Notice of Appearance by counsel (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff requests that the Court

24

reconsider its Order, reopen the case, and permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, or in

25

the alternative, to amend the judgment to reflect dismissal without prejudice. (Id.)

Page 1 of 3

1

II.

2

LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for a new trial, as well

3

as motions to alter or amend a judgment in certain cases where summary judgment has been

4

granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59; see School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.

5

1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994).

6

Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a standard by which the Court

7

might reconsider its Order. This rule, governing relief from a judgment or order, provides in

8

part:

9

(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On

10

motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from

11

a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:

12

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

13

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have

14

been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

15

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation,

16

or misconduct by an opposing party;

17

(4) the judgment is void;

18

(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an

19

earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively

20

is no longer equitable; or

21

(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The Ninth Circuit has distilled the grounds for reconsideration into three

23

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

24

manifest injustice; and (3) an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J v.

25

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

Page 2 of 3

1

III.

2

DISCUSSION
As discussed by Wells Fargo in its Response (ECF No. 31), Plaintiff presents no

3

grounds for relief from the Court’s Order and final Judgment. Plaintiff appears to base his

4

request on the grounds of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” or “the need

5

to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” (See Mot. Reconsider, ECF No. 30.)

6

However, the Court finds no such cause to reconsider its decision, particularly where Plaintiff

7

himself chose to proceed pro se with his claims against Defendants in bringing the action, and

8

in the months during which Defendants defended themselves against Plaintiff’s claims. Also,

9

despite the Court’s finding that Plaintiff had failed to bring any causes of action upon which

10

relief could be granted, the Court gave Plaintiff an additional opportunity to file an amended

11

pleading, so as to cure these deficiencies. Plaintiff did not indicate that he sought additional

12

time in which to file an amended pleading, and the Court now finds no basis on which to

13

reconsider its final ruling dismissing the case with prejudice. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion

14

will be denied and the case will remain closed.

15

IV.

CONCLUSION

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 30) is DENIED.

17

DATED this 18th day of July, 2014.

18
19
20
21

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

22
23
24
25

Page 3 of 3