Morrison v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated et al

Filing 312

ORDER denying 303 Motion to Reopen Case; ORDER denying 304 Motion to Vacate; Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/14/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

PATRICIA HARDING MORRISON,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No. 2:14-cv-01207-RFB-BNW
ORDER

v.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC., et al.

11

Defendants.

12
13

I.

INTRODUCTION

14

Before the Court are Plaintiff Patricia Harding Morrison’s Motions to Reopen the case and

15

Motion to Vacate this Court’s prior order dated October 24, 2016. ECF Nos. For the following

16

reasons, the Court denies both motions.

17
18

II.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

19

In July 2014, Plaintiff, the surviving spouse of Tommy Morrison, filed her initial Complaint

20

against Defendants. ECF No. 1. On October 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint as a

21

survival action, in her capacity as the Executor of Tommy Morrison’s estate. ECF No. 79. On

22

October 24, 2016, the Court granted summary judgment to Defendants and ordered the Clerk of

23

the Court to close the case. Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit in November 2016. ECF

24

No. 279. On October 3, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s order. ECF No. 296. Plaintiff

25

filed petitions for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc that were denied. ECF No. 299. The

26

mandate for this case was issued on March 7, 2018. ECF No. 300. On August 5, 2019, Plaintiff

27

filed the instant motions. ECF Nos. 303, 304. Responses and replies were filed. ECF Nos. 305,

28

309-11.

1

III.

DISCUSSION

2

The Court construes Plaintiff’s Motions as motions under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules

3

of Civil Procedure. Rule 60 provides that the Court may change or vacate a final judgment for any

4

of the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect, (2) newly

5

discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in time to

6

move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, misrepresentation or misconduct by an opposing

7

party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged or is

8

based on a previously vacated judgment or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable, or (6)

9

any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

10

This Court previously granted summary judgment to Defendants on the grounds that all of

11

Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred. In her motions to reopen and vacate, Plaintiff fails to identify

12

any substantiated bases for this Court to revisit its prior decision, and accordingly the Court denies

13

both motions.

14
15
16
17

IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case (ECF No. 303)

and Motion to Vacate Order (ECF NO. 304) are both DENIED.

18
19

DATED this 14th day of January 2020.

20
____________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-