Basile v. Southwest Airlines Company

Filing 99

AMENDED ORDER. 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 85 Defendant&# 039;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 1/25/2018. (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

Plaintiff,

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

12
13

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. 85). The Court begins by addressing the countermotions for summary judgment. All of

22

the necessary discovery has not taken place in this case, as directed by this Court’s prior Order. In

23

its prior Order (ECF No. 82), the Court ordered Defendant to produce up to five individuals

24

familiar with the circumstances of Plaintiff’s defamation claim. The Court understands that,

25

although Plaintiff’s deposition was taken on May 3, 2017, no depositions of Southwest Airlines

26

employees have yet been taken in this case. The Court therefore denies the countermotions for

27

summary judgment, and reopens discovery for a period of seventy-five days, to include the

28

depositions as set forth in this Court’s prior Order.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

for reconsideration.

25
26
27

IV.

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

28

-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No.
78) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Countermotion for Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 85) 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.

9
10

DATED: January 25, 2018.

11
___________________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-