Kevin Fernandez Vs. State of Nevada, et al.

Filing 633

ORDER DENYING 615 Motion for Magistrate Judge to Reconsider Magistrate Judge Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 4/4/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO) Modified on 4/4/2012 to correct verbiage. (KO)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

KEVIN FERNANDEZ,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
vs.
STATE OF NEVADA, et. al.
Defendants.

12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:06-cv-00628-LRH (WGC)
ORDER

13

Before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and/or Alternatively Motion

14

to Review Order. (Doc. # 615.) Plaintiff moves the court to reconsider its Order set forth at

15

Doc. # 606. (Id.)

16

That Order dealt with Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplementary Points and

17

Authorities in Support of Motion to Compel Enforcement of the Settlement Agreement (Doc.

18

# 604). (See Doc. # 606.) The court interpreted Plaintiff’s motion as seeking leave to

19

supplement his motion to compel enforcement of the settlement agreement to assert an

20

alternate theory of breach of contract. (See id.) The court denied Plaintiff’s motion, stating

21

that if Plaintiff sought to assert that Defendants breached the settlement agreement (as

22

opposed to an effort to enforce the settlement agreement), such a claim should be brought in

23

a separate action. (See Doc. # 606.)

24

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) provides as follows: “On motion and just terms,

25

the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or

26

proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable

27

neglect...” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b) (1).

28

A motion for reconsideration should not merely present arguments previously raised.

1

Stated another way, a motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a mechanism for the

2

losing party to rehash unsuccessful arguments already presented. See Maraziti v. Thorp, 52

3

F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199-201

4

(1950)).

5

Plaintiff asserts that his motion was not seeking to assert a breach of contract theory,

6

but sought to enforce the settlement agreement. Plaintiff had already filed a motion to enforce

7

the settlement agreement (Doc. # 564), and briefing had been closed for some time. Moreover,

8

the court previously granted Plaintiff’s request to supplement his motion to compel

9

enforcement of the settlement agreement (Doc. # 571). (See Doc. # 592 at 3.) The court has

10

issued a Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s motion to enforce the settlement

11

agreement, which is currently pending before the District Court. (See Doc. # 610.)

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff fails to present any new argument showing why the court’s decision was
improper. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 615) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED: April 4, 2012.

16
17

WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2