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)
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?