Benchmark Insurance Company v. GL Construction Company et al
Filing
104
ORDER denying 93 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 6/1/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
BENCHMARK INSURANCE COMPANY,
7
8
Plaintiff,
3:14-cv-00326-RCJ-VPC
vs.
ORDER
9
GL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12
This case arises from an insurance dispute. Defendant GL Construction Company
13
(“GL”) and its owner, Defendant Gordon Lemich, were sued in state court by Defendants
14
Cerberus Holdings, LLC (“Cerberus”) and Northern Nevada Homes, LLC (“NNH”) for
15
negligent and intentional trespass arising from GL’s dumping of dirt and other debris on property
16
owned by NNH (“the Cerberus Action”). During time relevant to that case, GL held a general
17
commercial insurance policy (“the Policy”) from Plaintiff Benchmark Insurance Company
18
(“Benchmark”). GL tendered a claim for coverage under the Policy, which Benchmark denied.
19
Benchmark then sued Defendants for a declaratory judgment that it owed GL no coverage for
20
Cerberus’s and NNH’s allegations.
21
The Court recently granted Benchmark’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of
22
whether it owed a duty to defend GL in the Cerberus Action. (ECF No. 90). This ruling came
23
after the Court had denied GL and Lemich’s motion for summary judgment on the same issue,
24
1
1
(ECF No. 36), as well as at least two subsequent motions for reconsideration, (ECF Nos. 56, 69).
2
Now pending before the Court is a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Cerberus and NNH.
3
(ECF No. 93). Cerberus and NNH claim as the basis of this Motion that recently taken
4
deposition testimony demonstrates that three separate acts of dumping or trespassing occurred on
5
the property at issue. Cerberus and NNH argue that even if the Policy’s deemer provision
6
precludes coverage as to the first act of dumping, which they call “cut and fill,” the deemer
7
provision does not preclude coverage on a “stockpiling” of dirt that occurred in 2011-2013, or a
8
third instance of trespass that occurred in 2009. (Mot. for Recon. 4–8, ECF No. 93).
9
A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should reconsider
10
its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the
11
court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D.
12
Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered
13
evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is
14
an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263
15
(9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and
16
arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F. Supp.
17
2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).
18
The Court finds that reconsideration is not warranted here. Cerberus and NNH’s Motion
19
is brought under a theory of newly discovered evidence in the form of the deposition testimony
20
cited above. Evidence, however, is not considered newly discovered simply because an
21
opposing party did not have the evidence prior to the order being challenged. Rather, the party
22
asserting additional evidence “must show that he failed to discover that evidence earlier although
23
he exercised due diligence.” Moylan v. Siciliano, 292 F.2d 704, 705 (9th Cir. 1961). Cerberus
24
2
1
and NNH offer no persuasive explanation as to why they could not have obtained the depositions
2
of Lemich, Fitzgerald, or any other party related to this case prior to the Court’s April 13, 2015
3
order. Indeed, the Court first ruled on the issue of Benchmark’s duty to defend GL in the
4
Cerberus Action back in October 2014. There is no reason why Cerberus and NNH could not
5
have deposed Lemich after that ruling, or even after the Court’s denial of the first motion for
6
reconsideration in January 2015, to determine whether GL’s dumping was continuous or could
7
somehow be divided into different “types” of dumping as is now alleged. For this reason alone,
8
reconsideration is not proper.
Furthermore, the Court finds that even if the “newly” discovered evidence were properly
9
10
presented now, it would have no effect on the outcome of this case. The deposition testimony
11
does not convince the Court that GL’s dumping should be divided into separate instances as
12
Cerberus and NNH suggest. The harm alleged in the Cerberus Action is damage caused by GL’s
13
dumping regardless of the purpose or objective of that dumping. The Motion to Reconsider is
14
denied.
15
16
17
18
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Cerberus and NNH’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF
No. 93) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated: June 1, 2015
Dated: _______________________
21
22
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
23
24
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?