Hassan v. The Cosompolitan of Las Vegas

Filing 14

ORDER Denying 13 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 7/8/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Shaista Hassan,

5

Plaintiff

6
7

Case No.: 2:15-cv-00370-JAD-CWH
Order Denying Motion for
Reconsideration

v.
The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas,

8

[ECF No. 13]

Defendant

9
10
Ten months ago, I dismissed this slip-and-fall case on the unopposed motion of defendant

11
12

Nevada Property 1, LLC (sued as The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas) because pro se plaintiff Shaista

13

Hassan failed to allege facts to establish diversity jurisdiction. In her complaint, Hassan claimed the

14

amount in controversy is $395,000, but she did not include any facts about the citizenship of either

15

herself or Nevada Property. I gave Hassan until September 14, 2015, to file an amended complaint

16

that properly alleged diverse parties, and I warned her that I would dismiss her case with prejudice if

17

she failed to do so.1 Hassan filed nothing,2 and on October 21, 2015, I dismissed her case with

18

prejudice and entered judgment against Hassan.3
Having offered no response to the original motion to dismiss and no amended complaint,

19
20

Hassan now asks the court to let her prosecute this case.4 She cites no authority for her request for

21

relief (styled as a “Motion for Withdrawl [sic] of Motion to Dismiss”) and offers only this argument:

22

I . . . was not properly informed by the lawyer of Cosmopolitan of Las

23
1

24

ECF No. 9.

2

26

Plaintiff was timely provided with the notice required under Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th
Cir. 1998) (en banc), Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2003), and Klingele v.
Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988). ECF No. 6.

27

3

ECF Nos. 11, 12.

28

4

I find this motion suitable for resolution without oral argument. L.R. 78-1.

25

Page 1 of 3

1

Vegas what it was she needed from me to proceed. At the time I
understood the [sic] she was requesting a $500 bond, she had already
filed a motion to dismiss. Financial Hardship has caused me to delay
this current action but I am now ready to finally represent myself in
this claim.5

2
3
4

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explains the process and standard for

5

obtaining relief from a case-ending order like my October 21, 2015, order dismissing this case with

6

prejudice. That rule explains that:

7

the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that,
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud, . . .
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the
judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or
discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or apply it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any
other reason that justifies relief.6

8
9
10
11
12
13

Motions for relief under Rule 60 “must be made within a reasonable time.”7

14

Even if I were to accept that an eight-month delay in bringing this motion is reasonable,

15

Hassan has not shown that relief is available under any basis stated in the rule. The fact that she was

16

unaware of what she needed to proceed with the lawsuit that she originally filed in this court is no

17

excuse for her failure to take any action,8 and it was not opposing counsel’s job to inform Hassan of

18

what she needed to do to move this case forward. It is also no excuse that Hassan was not financially

19

prepared to prosecute this case until now. Deadlines passed, a meritorious motion was granted, and

20
21

ECF No. 13.

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

7

22

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1).

23
24
8

25
26
27
28

A plaintiff is not relieved of her obligation to comply with the rules and procedures of this court
simply because she has not retained, or cannot afford to retain, an attorney to represent her. King
v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of
procedure that govern other litigants.”); see also Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995)
(“Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of
procedure.”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (“pro se litigants in the
ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with attorneys of record.”).
Page 2 of 3

1

Hassan failed to take any action to prevent the loss of her rights. She has not demonstrated that her

2

total neglect of this case was excusable. And she has offered nothing to show she can cure the defect

3

that led to the dismissal of her case in the first place: the lack of factual allegations in her complaint

4

to show that the parties are citizens of different states such that this court of limited jurisdiction has

5

the power to hear this case.

6
7

Conclusion
Hassan has not demonstrated any basis for this court to grant relief from the order dismissing

8

this case with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hassan’s Motion for

9

Withdrawl [sic] of Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 13] is DENIED.

10
11
12

DATED this 8th day of July, 2016
_________________________________
____________________
__ __
_
_
_ __
__
Jennifer A. Dorsey
Dors
Dorsey
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 3 of 3