Hupe v. Mani et al
Filing
18
ORDER Denying 16 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 3/24/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
ADAM HUPE,
4
Plaintiff,
5
vs.
6
7
PHILIP C. MANI, an individual; RADIANT
POINT LTD, a Texas limited company,
8
Defendants.
9
10
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 2:16-cv-00533-GMN-VCF
ORDER
Pending before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 16), filed by
11
Plaintiff Adam Hupe (“Plaintiff”). Defendants Philip C. Mani and Radiant Point, Ltd.
12
(collectively “Defendants”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 17), and Plaintiff did not file a Reply.
13
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.
14
I.
15
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 9, 2016, alleging claims of breach of contract and
16
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Compl., ¶¶ 25–40, ECF No. 1).
17
On April 1, 2016, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
18
Procedure 12(b)(2), arguing that Plaintiff failed to establish the minimum contacts necessary to
19
sustain personal jurisdiction over Defendants in Nevada. (Mot. to Dismiss 7:14–16, ECF No.
20
8). On July 12, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (Order, ECF No. 14).
21
In the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration on this issue, asserting that new evidence
22
establishes the necessary minimum contacts for jurisdiction. (Pl.’s Mot. for Reconsideration
23
2:1–3, ECF No. 16).
24
///
25
///
Page 1 of 3
1
II.
2
3
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits a court to set aside its order for the
following reasons:
4
1)
mistake inadvertence surprise or excusable neglect;
5
2)
newly discovered evidence that with reasonable diligence could not have been
6
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
7
3)
fraud;
8
4)
the judgment is void;
9
5)
the judgment has been satisfied released or discharged; or
10
6)
any other reason that justifies relief.
11
The Ninth Circuit has limited the grounds for reconsideration into three primary
12
categories: 1) newly discovered evidence; 2) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
13
injustice; or 3) an intervening change in controlling law. Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255
14
F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001). In general, “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted,
15
absent highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).
16
III.
17
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues that reconsideration is warranted based on a number of new factual
18
assertions. It is well established that a motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise
19
arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised
20
earlier in the litigation.” Marylyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d
21
873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 833
22
F.2d 208, 212 (9th Cir. 1987) (stating that evidence in the possession of the party before the
23
judgment was rendered is not newly discovered). Here, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how
24
his assertions constitute “newly discovered evidence” for purposes of reconsideration. To the
25
Page 2 of 3
1
contrary, Plaintiff’s assertions are based almost entirely on his own personal knowledge and
2
could have been raised in response to the original Motion to Dismiss.
3
Accordingly,
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 16),
5
6
is DENIED.
24
DATED this _____ day of March, 2017.
7
8
9
___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3 of 3
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?