Carter v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 31 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/12/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PS)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

CHAD CARTER,
4
5

Plaintiff,
vs.

6

RENT-A-CENTER, INC.,
7
8

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:15-cv-00178-GMN-CWH
ORDER

9
10

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 31) filed by Plaintiff

11

Chad Carter (“Plaintiff”). Defendant Rent-A-Center, Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a Response (ECF

12

No. 35), and Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 36). Plaintiff asserts that “the Court committed

13

clear legal error in finding the class waiver is enforceable without analyzing Plaintiff’s

14

unconscionability argument, effectively denying Plaintiff the right to be heard on this particular

15

issue.” (Mot. Reconsider 5:1–5).

16

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

17

circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).

18

Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court is presented with newly discovered

19

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

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). However, a motion for reconsideration is not

22

a mechanism for rearguing issues presented in the original filings, Backlund v. Barnhart, 778

23

F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985), or “advancing theories of the case that could have been

24

presented earlier, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D. Tex. 1994)

25

(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

The Court has reviewed the prior Orders and the arguments presented by Plaintiff in its

4

motion and has not found any reason to overturn this Court’s previous Orders. The Court finds

5

neither clear error nor manifest injustice in the reasoning of its previous Orders. Accordingly,

6

Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

7
8
9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 31) is
DENIED.
12
DATED this _____ day of April, 2016.

10
11
12
13
14
15

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

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 2 of 2