Pilger v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 25

ORDER Denying 23 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/20/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

PAUL WILLIAM PILGER,

Case No. 2:15-CV-1833 JCM (NJK)

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Paul Pilger’s motion for reconsideration of this

14

court’s July 1, 2016, order dismissing the action. (ECF No. 23). Defendant Bank of America,

15

N.A. filed a response. (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff did not file a reply. Although not specified, it

16

appears that plaintiff seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See (ECF No. 23).

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

an intervening change in controlling law.” Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th

22

Cir. 2003); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

23
24

Plaintiff elucidates nine arguments in his motion, separated into nine corresponding
sections. See (ECF No. 23). The court has reviewed each argument.

25

The first, second, third, fourth, and seventh bases of the motion address either irrelevant

26

considerations or seek to relitigate issues that could have been addressed before the court granted

27

dismissal; therefore, they cannot serve as the foundation for relief under rule 60. See Casey v.

28

Albertson’s Inc, 362 F.3d 1254, 1261 (9th Cir. 2004).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1
2

As to the fifth and eighth ground, removal does not require the granting of a motion. See
28 U.S.C. § 1446. Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.

3

The sixth ground for relief is similarly meritless because plaintiff’s motion appears to

4

acknowledge that the Nevada Supreme Court did reach a decision regarding discovery and

5

mediation in the prior state case. See (ECF No. 23).

6
7

Finally, the ninth ground is not pertinent here because the present order is not based on any
consideration of timeliness. See (id.).

8

In sum, plaintiff has not shown that he is entitled to relief pursuant to rule 60.

9

Accordingly,

10
11
12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 23) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DATED April 20, 2017.

13
14

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-