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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?