Aiken v. Snee et al

Filing 35

ORDER denying 30 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order 28 on Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/6/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

PATRICIA AIKEN,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:13-CV-1768 JCM (VCF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
THOMAS M. SNEE, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Patricia Aiken’s (hereinafter “plaintiff”)

14

motion for reconsideration. (Doc. # 30). Pro se defendants Thomas Snee, Hanh Nguyen, and

15

Thomas Snee II (hereinafter “defendants”) filed a response, (doc. # 32), and plaintiff filed a

16

reply, (doc. # 33).

17

In her motion, plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its dismissal of the instant action on

18

the grounds that plaintiff previously agreed to remove non-diverse defendants from her

19

complaint. Plaintiff also requests a hearing.

20

On August 4, 2014, the court dismissed the instant action with prejudice for lack of

21

subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. # 28). The court found that the complete diversity requirement

22

of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was not met because plaintiff and two of the defendants are all citizens of

23

Nevada. (Doc. # 28).

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be

2

filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

3

Plaintiff fails to cite newly discovered evidence or an intervening change in controlling

4

law. Further, plaintiff has not shown that the court committed clear error or that the court’s

5

decision was manifestly unjust.

6

Plaintiff indicated in her response to defendants’ motion to dismiss, (doc. # 27), that she

7

would drop defendants Thomas Snee II and Endoprim, Inc. from her complaint. However,

8

plaintiff never voluntarily dismissed these defendants or filed an amended complaint.

9

For these reasons, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s case due to

10

lack of complete diversity. Dismissal of the case was therefore proper, and plaintiff’s motion for

11

reconsideration will be denied.

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for

14
15

reconsideration, (doc. # 30), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED October 6, 2014.

16
17

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-