GMAT Legal Title Trust 2013-1, by U.S. Bank v. Fitchner et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 49 Motion for District Judge to Reconsider Order. Signed by Judge Howard D. McKibben on 1/22/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

GMAT LEGAL TITLE TRUST 2013-1, BY )
U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION )
AS LEGAL TITLE TRUSTEE, a
)
national association,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JAMES W. FITCHNER, an individual; )
SANDRA A. WHITE, an individual; )
NORENE M. VICKERS, an individual; )
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national )
association; RAINBOW BEND
)
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a )
corporation; DOES 1 through 10, )
inclusive, and ROES 1 through 10, )
inclusive.
)
)
Defendants.
)
_________________________________ )

3:15-cv-00044-HDM-WGC
ORDER

18

Defendant Rainbow Bend Homeowners Association moves this court

19

to reconsider its November 19, 2015 order denying without prejudice

20

defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, motion for

21

summary judgment (#49).

22

Plaintiff has opposed (#50).

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not contemplate motions

23

to reconsider interlocutory orders.

24

(specifying that this rule only applies to “a final judgment, order,

25

or proceeding”).

26

power” to reconsider orders it deems inadequate. City of Los Angeles,

27

Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.

28

2001).

See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)

Rather, the court has “the inherent procedural

1

1

Reconsideration is appropriate in only limited circumstances.

2

See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. AcandS, 5 F.3d 1255,

3

1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

4

reconsider an issue if (1) the first decision was clearly erroneous

5

and would result in manifest injustice; (2) an intervening change in

6

the law has occurred; or (3) substantially new evidence has become

7

available.

8

(9th Cir. 2000). Reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy, to be

9

used sparingly and in the interests of finality and conservation of

A court properly exercises its discretion to

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890

10

judicial resources.”

11

such, a motion for reconsideration is properly denied where is

12

presents no new arguments.

13

(9th Cir. 1985). By the same token, a motion for reconsideration “may

14

not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time

15

when

16

litigation.”

they

could

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

As

Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388

reasonably

have

been

raised

earlier

in

the

Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890.

17

The court concludes that there is no basis to reconsider its

18

order denying without prejudice defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in

19

the

20

defendant’s motion to reconsider (#49) is DENIED.

alternative,

motion

for

summary

judgment.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED: This 22nd day of January, 2016.

23
24

____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2

Accordingly,