Basile v. Southwest Airlines Company

Filing 94

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 74 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 78 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 84 Defendant Southwest A irlines Company (Defendant)'s Countermotion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery in this case is reopened for 75 days. The parties shall submit separate proposed discovery plans within one week of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for purposes of discovery.Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/16/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9

***

10

CONSTANTINO BASILE,

11

ORDER
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 2:15-cv-01883-RFB-VCF

v.

14
15
16

SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Before the Court are Plaintiff Constantino Basile (“Plaintiff”)’s Motion for

19

Reconsideration, (ECF No. 74), Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 78), and

20

Defendant Southwest Airlines Company (“Defendant”)’s Countermotion for Summary Judgment

21

(ECF No. 84). The Court begins by addressing the countermotions for summary judgment. Both

22

parties argue that necessary discovery has not taken place in this case. In its prior Order (ECF No.

23

82), the Court ordered Defendant to produce up to five individuals familiar with the circumstances

24

of Plaintiff’s defamation claim. Further, the Court stated in its Order: “Plaintiff MUST sit for a

25

deposition by Defendant. If Plaintiff does not submit to a deposition in this case within 75 days of

26

the date of this order, he may be subject to sanctions up to and including monetary sanctions and

27

dismissal of his entire case.” The Court understands that no depositions have yet been taken in this

28

case, including of Plaintiff. The Court therefore denies the countermotions for summary judgment,

1

and reopens discovery for a period of sixty days, to include the depositions as set forth in this

2

Court’s prior Order.

3

The Court now addresses Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. “As long as a district

4

court has jurisdiction over the case, then it possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider,

5

rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient.” City of Los Angeles,

6

Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation and quotation

7

marks omitted). The Court has discretion to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration. Navajo

8

Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). However, “[a] motion for reconsideration

9

should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented

10

with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the

11

controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880

12

(9th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

13

Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its dismissal of his recklessness claim, pursuant

14

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and Local Rule 59-1. Rule 60(b) permits a court to

15

grant a party relief from a final judgment or order due to exceptions specified in (b)(1)-(5) or “any

16

other reason that justifies relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Local Rule 59-1(a) provides in relevant

17

part: “A party seeking reconsideration under this rule must state with particularity the points of

18

law or fact that the court has overlooked or misunderstood. . . . The court possesses the inherent

19

power to reconsider an interlocutory order for cause, so long as the court retains jurisdiction.”

20

These motions are disfavored. LR 59-1(b). The Court finds there is no basis to grant Plaintiff relief

21

from the prior dismissal of the recklessness claim. At a hearing on March 6, 2017, the Court stated

22

that Plaintiff failed to show damages cognizable in a recklessness action or any other action

23

sounding in negligence. Plaintiff does not raise any new arguments in his Motion – the potentially

24

valid arguments he does raise are more appropriate for his defamation cause of action, which he

25

may address in a refiled Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, the Court denies the motion

26

for reconsideration.

27

///

28

///

-2-

1

IV.

CONCLUSION

2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 74), is DENIED.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.

4

78) is DENIED without prejudice.

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Southwest Airlines Company

6

(“Defendant”)’s Countermotion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 84) is DENIED without

7

prejudice.

8
9
10
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that discovery in this case is reopened for 75 days. The
parties shall submit separate proposed discovery plans within one week of this order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is referred to the Magistrate Judge for
purposes of discovery.

12
13

DATED: January 16, 2018.

14
___________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-