The 24-7 Group of Companies, Inc. v. Roberts et al

Filing 49

ORDER denying 48 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/8/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

THE 24-7 GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC.
a Nevada corporation,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00211-MMD-WGC
ORDER

8
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12

v.
TERRY ROBERTS, an individual;
MELANIE ROBERTS, an individual; and
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc.,
Defendant.

13
14

On November 21, 2014, the Court accepted and adopted in full the Report and

15

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (“R&R”)

16

recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice due to the failure of Plaintiff

17

The 24-7 Group of Companies, Inc. (“24-7”) to secure successor counsel in this matter.

18

(Dkt. no. 46.) Plaintiff’s chairman, Rune Kraft, now brings a Motion for Reconsideration

19

(“Motion”), asking the Court to reconsider its decision and allow Plaintiff until January 31,

20

2015, to retain counsel. (Dkt. no. 48.) The Motion is denied.

21

A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should

22

reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

23

persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp.

24

2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is

25

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

26

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.”

27

Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for

28

reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon

1

which the court already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F. Supp. 2d

2

1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).

3

The Motion fails to set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

4

persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure, 256 F. Supp. 2d at 1183. In the

5

Motion, Mr. Kraft argues that the Court should allow Plaintiff until January 31, 2015, to

6

secure counsel as it is only a delay of two (2) months, after forty-five (45) months of legal

7

proceedings in this case. In its order granting the R&R, the Court noted that Plaintiff

8

received the order granting counsel’s motion to withdraw on August 25, 2014. (Dkt. no.

9

46 at 2-3.) Mr. Kraft appeared telephonically at a hearing on September 5, 2014, and he

10

was informed that Plaintiff must secure counsel by September 30, 2014. (Dkt. no. 46 at

11

3.) Plaintiff has yet to retain counsel. In a previous objection, Mr. Kraft asked for ninety

12

(90) days to raise issues with his counsel to the State Bar of Nevada and, if that does not

13

resolve his issues with counsel, secure new counsel. (Dkt. no. 45 at 4.) The Court found

14

that a stay of proceedings for Mr. Kraft to make a complaint to the State Bar of Nevada

15

was not warranted. (Dkt. no. 46 at 6.) While Mr. Kraft may have a busy schedule, he has

16

been on notice since at least August 25, 2014, that his counsel withdrew and that

17

Plaintiff needed to secure new counsel. Since then, Mr. Kraft appeared for a telephonic

18

hearing on September 5, 2014, filed an objection on October 17, 2014, and filed the

19

instant Motion on December 5, 2014, all the while failing to secure counsel as required

20

and ordered.

21

The Motion does not raise any new facts or evidence, show clear error or

22

manifest injustice in the Court’s order granting the R&R, or demonstrate an intervening

23

change in law. Reconsideration is therefore denied.

24

It is therefore ordered that the Motion for Reconsideration (dkt. no. 48) is denied.

25

DATED THIS 8th day of December 2014.

26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2