Lyons v. Bank of America Corporation
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 8 Plaintiff's Objection to Court's Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 3/31/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:16-CV-02760-KJD-NJK
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objection to Court’s Judgment (#8). Liberally
construing Plaintiff’s pro se pleading, the Court considers it a motion for reconsideration. The Court
dismissed Plaintiff’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on February 22, 2017.
A motion to reconsider a final appealable order is appropriately brought under either Rule
59(e) or Rule 60 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d
1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000). Motions for reconsideration are committed to the discretion of the
trial court. See School Dist. No. 1J. Mutlinomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th
Cir. 1993). Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is appropriate where: (1) the district court is presented
with newly discovered evidence or committed clear error; (2) the initial decision was manifestly
unjust; or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dist. No. 1J., 5 F.3d at
1263. Motions made under Rule 59(e) “should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances.”
389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999).
A motion for reconsideration should not merely present arguments previously raised; that is, a
motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to reiterate arguments
previously presented. See Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995); Beentjes v. Placer
County Air Pollution Control District, 254 F.Supp.2d 1159, at 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2003); Khan v.
Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party cannot have relief under this rule
merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
failed to provide newly discovered evidence, failed to demonstrate clear error, failed to show that the
initial decision was manifestly unjust,or show that there has been an intervening change in law. The
Court does point out to Plaintiff, that the dismissal was without prejudice. This allows Plaintiff to
reassert the claims should he be able to prove jurisdiction or retain counsel capable of representing a
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to Court’s Judgment (#8)
DATED this 31st day of March 2017.
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge
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?