Lyons v. Bank of America Corporation

Filing 12

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 10 VICTOR LYONS, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 Case No. 2:16-CV-02760-KJD-NJK BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., ORDER 14 Defendants. 15 16 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Objection to Court’s Judgment (#8). Liberally 17 construing Plaintiff’s pro se pleading, the Court considers it a motion for reconsideration. The Court 18 dismissed Plaintiff’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on February 22, 2017. 19 A motion to reconsider a final appealable order is appropriately brought under either Rule 20 59(e) or Rule 60 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 21 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000). Motions for reconsideration are committed to the discretion of the 22 trial court. See School Dist. No. 1J. Mutlinomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th 23 Cir. 1993). Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is appropriate where: (1) the district court is presented 24 with newly discovered evidence or committed clear error; (2) the initial decision was manifestly 25 unjust; or (3) there is an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dist. No. 1J., 5 F.3d at 26 1 1263. Motions made under Rule 59(e) “should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances.” 2 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 3 A motion for reconsideration should not merely present arguments previously raised; that is, a 4 motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to reiterate arguments 5 previously presented. See Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995); Beentjes v. Placer 6 County Air Pollution Control District, 254 F.Supp.2d 1159, at 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2003); Khan v. 7 Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party cannot have relief under this rule 8 merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”). Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff has 9 failed to provide newly discovered evidence, failed to demonstrate clear error, failed to show that the 10 initial decision was manifestly unjust,or show that there has been an intervening change in law. The 11 Court does point out to Plaintiff, that the dismissal was without prejudice. This allows Plaintiff to 12 reassert the claims should he be able to prove jurisdiction or retain counsel capable of representing a 13 class. 14 15 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objection to Court’s Judgment (#8) is DENIED. DATED this 31st day of March 2017. 17 18 19 20 _____________________________ Kent J. Dawson United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?