Shepard v. Bell et al
Filing
57
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 53 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 9/3/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
6
7
_____________________________________
JEWEL SHEPARD,
8
Plaintiff,
9
vs.
10
RICHARD K. BELL et al.,
11
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
3:15-cv-0058-RCJ-VPC
ORDER
12
13
This case arises from the alleged conduct of the various Defendants related to property
14
awarded to Plaintiff’s ex-spouse, Defendant Richard K. Bell (“Bell”), in the parties’ divorce
15
decree. Pending before the Court is a Motion to Reconsider the dismissal of Plaintiff Jewel
16
Shepard’s case (ECF No. 53). For the reasons given herein, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
17
I.
18
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a complaint for this case, proceeding pro se. (ECF
19
No. 1). On March 27, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss with leave to
20
amend (Order 1, ECF No. 33), and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint (“FAC”) on April 9,
21
2015 (ECF No. 36). On June 16, 2015, the Court then granted with prejudice Defendants’ motion
22
to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). (Order 1, ECF No.
23
52). Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its order to dismiss the case.
24
1 of 3
1
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Granting a motion to reconsider is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
2
3
interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934,
4
945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 59.30[4]
5
(3d ed. 2000)). A motion to reconsider “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
6
for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id.
7
“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered
8
evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is
9
an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS,
10
Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). In some cases, “other, highly unusual, circumstances”
11
may warrant reconsideration.” Id.
12
III.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any basis for reconsidering its order dismissing
13
14
the case. In granting the motion to dismiss, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to raise any
15
federal claims. She raised one claim based on state law (tortious interference with prospective
16
economic advantage) and a false advertising claim that was not clearly based on either federal or
17
state law. (Order, 6–8, ECF No. 52). The Court found that even if the false advertising claim had
18
been based on federal law, that law is not applicable to this case. (Id. at 8).
In this Motion, Plaintiff has not presented any arguments or evidence relevant to this case
19
20
that she could not reasonably have raised earlier. She claims that Defendants have violated the
21
False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, but she failed to raise this claim in either her complaint or
22
FAC.
23
24
2 of 3
1
The Court also found that Plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because she
2
did not plead the domiciles of any of the parties. (Order, 7, ECF No. 52). Specifically, Plaintiff
3
provided no facts to determine the citizenship of Defendant Keller Williams, and she took a
4
position that two Defendants (Richard K. Bell and Cheryl Lynn Zittle Sell-Bell) live in
5
California, which destroyed complete diversity. In this Motion, Plaintiff identifies the
6
headquarters of Defendant Keller Williams as Austin, TX (Mot. for Recons., 16, ECF No. 53),
7
but she fails to provide any clear evidence regarding the domiciles of Bell and Sell-Bell or any
8
evidence she could not have raised earlier.
9
Plaintiff has not presented any newly discovered evidence or shown any clear error or
10
change in controlling law. She also has not proven any manifest injustice or highly unusual
11
circumstances involving the decision that warrant reconsideration.
CONCLUSION
12
13
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 53) is DENIED.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated this 3rd day September, 2015.
Dated this 1st day of of September, 2015.
16
17
18
_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
3 of 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?