Pacchiega v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. et al

Filing 33

ORDER Denying 30 Plaintiff's Motion for District Judge to Reconsider 28 Order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 01/24/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
FERNANDO PACCHIEGA,

8
9

2:13-CV-478 JCM (PAL)

Plaintiff(s),

10

v.

11

FEDERAL HOME LOAN
MORTGAGE CORPORATION and
GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.,

12
13

Defendant(s).

14
15
16

ORDER

17

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion for the court to reconsider its order granting

18

a motion to dismiss in favor of defendant. (Doc. #30). Defendant filed a response in opposition.

19

(Doc. #31).

20

I.

Background

21

This case arises out of a property transfer, in which the court liberally construes plaintiff’s

22

causes of action for (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) negligent misrepresentation, and (3) quiet

23

title. (Doc. #1, Ex. A). This court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

24

12(b)(6). (Doc. #28). Subsequently, plaintiff filed the instant motion to reconsider. (Doc. #30).

25

II.

Legal Standard

26

A motion for reconsideration “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.”

27

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Reconsideration “is

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear

2

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

3

controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

4

Rule 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,” however “the

5

rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation

6

of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations

7

omitted). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first

8

time when they could reasonably have been raised in the earlier litigation.” Id. (citing Kona Enters.,

9

Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).

10

III.

Discussion

11

Plaintiff requests that the court reconsider its order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Plaintiff

12

is not presenting the motion based on one of the recognized grounds for reconsideration. See School

13

Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Plaintiff argues that the court should

14

allow the parties to engage in discovery, asserting “if there was any issue with how the plaintiff or

15

defendant were handling this complaint, it should have gone to discovery and not have been closed

16

out.” Restated, the plaintiff hopes the court will arrive at a different conclusion if it revisits the issue.

17

This is not the purpose of a motion for reconsideration. See Teller v. Dogge, no. 2:12-cv-591-JCM-

18

GWF, 2013 WL 508326, at *6 n. 6 (D. Nev. Feb. 8, 2013) (“Motions for reconsideration are not

19

appropriate when a party wants the court to think about the issue again in the hope that the court will

20

come out the other way the second time.”).

21

IV. Conclusion

22

For the foregoing reasons, the court finds that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not

23

present any newly discovered evidence, indicate that the court’s prior order came as a result of clear

24

error or manifest injustice, or reveal that there was a change in the controlling law. Accordingly, the

25

court will deny the motion.

26

...

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1
2
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (doc. # 30) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED January 24, 2014.

4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-