Evanston Insurance Company v. Western Community Insurance Company

Filing 97

ORDER Denying Defendant's 87 Motion to Reconsider and Denying as moot Defendant's 93 Motion to Stay. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 6/23/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6
7
8
9

WESTERN COMMUNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:13-cv-01268-GMN-CWH
ORDER

10

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 87) and the Motion to
11
12
13

Stay (ECF No. 93) filed by Defendant Western Community Insurance Company (“Western”).
On March 5, 2015, this Court entered an Order regarding Plaintiff Evanston Insurance
Company’s (“Evanston”) Motion for Summary Judgment. (See ECF No. 84). In its Order, the

14
15
16

Court directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in favor of Evanston in the amount of
$238, 404.06. (Order 8:8–11). Shortly thereafter, Western filed the instant motions.
“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

17
18
19

circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered
evidence, (2) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)

20

if there is an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v.
21
22

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). However, a motion for reconsideration is not
a mechanism for rearguing issues presented in the original filings, Backlund v. Barnhart, 778

23
24
25

F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985), or “advancing theories of the case that could have been
presented earlier, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D. Tex. 1994)
(footnotes omitted). Thus, Rule 59(e) and 60(b) and are not “intended to give an unhappy
Page 1 of 2

1

litigant one additional chance to sway the judge.” Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F. Supp. 879, 889

2

(E.D. Va. 1977).

3

In its Motion to Reconsider, Western raises many arguments previously raised in its

4

original filings. The Court has reviewed the prior Order and the arguments presented by

5

Western in its motion and has not found any reason to overturn this Court’s previous Order.

6

The Court finds neither clear error nor manifest injustice in the reasoning of its previous Order.

7

Accordingly, the Western’s Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Western’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 87) is

10
11
12
13

DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Western’s Motion to Stay (ECF No. 93) is
DENIED as moot.
23
DATED this _____ day of June, 2016.

14
15
16
17
18
19

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

20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2