Telepet USA, Inc. v Qualcomm, Incorporated, et al

Filing 83

ORDER that 82 Motion to Reconsider Order is DENIED. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/8/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) (Main Document 83 replaced on 12/8/2016 - nef regenerated) (MMM).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

TELEPET USA, INC.,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:15-CV-846 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is defendants’ motion to reconsider. (ECF No. 82).

14

On October 24, 2016, Magistrate Judge Foley denied defendants’ motion for oral argument,

15

finding that defendants’ underlying motion for sanctions was no longer pending as the case was

16

terminated on November 24, 2015. (ECF No. 81). Defendants now move for reconsideration of

17

the October 24th order. (ECF No. 82).

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263

23

(9th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no

24

later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

25

Rule 59(e) “permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,” however

26

“the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

27

conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)

28

(internal quotations omitted). A motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise arguments .

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

. . for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in litigation.” Kona

2

Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890.

3

In the instant motion, defendants argue that the magistrate’s finding was erroneous because

4

the court retained jurisdiction over their motion even after the case terminated. (ECF No. 82 at 2).

5

As Magistrate Judge Foley correctly found, the court dismissed the case in its order entered

6

on November 24, 2015, and defendants’ motion for sanctions is no longer pending. (ECF Nos. 72,

7

81). Thus, the magistrate did not err in denying defendants’ motion for oral arguments on a motion

8

that was no longer pending before the court. Further, defendants’ motion for oral argument (ECF

9

No. 80) was filed as a separate motion requesting a hearing in violation Local Rule 78-1, which

10

states that “[p]arties must not file separate motions requesting a hearing.”

11

Accordingly,

12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that defendants’ motion to

13
14
15
16

reconsider (ECF No. 82) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED December 8, 2016.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-