Jacobsen v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. et al

Filing 36

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (# 33 ) is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further fillings will be accepted in this closed action without leave of the Court. If any party wishes to request leave to file, the requested document shall be attached to a motion explaining why good cause exists for the Court to give leave. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/22/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 *** 10 MATT P. JACOBSEN, Case No. 3:12-cv-00486-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER 12 HSBC BANK USA, N.A., et al., 13 (Plf.’s Motion for Reconsideration – dkt. no. 33) Defendants. 14 15 I. SUMMARY 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff Matt P. Jacobsen’s Motion for Reconsideration of the 17 Court’s November 30, 2012 Order (dkt. no. 33). This is the second time Jacobsen has 18 effectively requested the Court to reconsider that Order. Previously, Jacobsen filed an 19 “Emergency Motion,” which the Court construed as a motion for reconsideration of the 20 November 30, 2012, Order. (Dkt. no. 28.) That Motion was denied. (Dkt. no. 30.) 21 II. BACKGROUND The relevant details concerning this transaction are summarized in the Court’s 22 23 November 30, 2012, Order. 24 III. LEGAL STANDARD 25 Although not mentioned in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, motions for 26 reconsideration may be brought under Rules 59(e) and 60(b). Under Rule 60(b), a court 27 may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding only in the following 28 circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly 1 discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been 2 satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Stewart v. Dupnik, 3 243 F.3d 549, 549 (9th Cir. 2000). 4 206 F.3d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 2000) (noting that the district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) 5 motion is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). See also De Saracho v. Custom Food Mach., Inc., 6 A motion for reconsideration must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason 7 why the court should revisit its prior order; and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing 8 nature” in support of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States, 256 9 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). On the other hand, a motion for reconsideration 10 is properly denied when the movant fails to establish any reason justifying relief. 11 Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that a district court 12 properly denied a motion for reconsideration in which the plaintiff presented no 13 arguments that were not already raised in his original motion)). Motions for 14 reconsideration are not “the proper vehicles for rehashing old arguments,” Resolution 15 Trust Corp. v. Holmes, 846 F. Supp. 1310, 1316 (S.D. Tex. 1994) (footnotes omitted), 16 and are not “intended to give an unhappy litigant one additional chance to sway the 17 judge.” Durkin v. Taylor, 444 F. Supp. 879, 889 (E.D. Va. 1977). 18 IV. DISCUSSION 19 Jacobsen’s Motion is without merit, as he has failed to demonstrate a valid reason 20 as to why the Court should revisit its prior order. Nor has he provided the Court with 21 facts or law of a “strongly convincing nature” in support of reversing its November 30, 22 2012, decision. See Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 23 2003). 24 V. 25 26 CONCLUSION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (dkt. no. 33) is DENIED. 27 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further fillings will be accepted in this closed 28 action without leave of the Court. If any party wishes to request leave to file, the 2 1 requested document shall be attached to a motion explaining why good cause exists for 2 the Court to give leave. 3 DATED THIS 22nd day of February, 2013. 4 5 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?