Young et al v. Mariscal et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying ECF No. 39 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke on 08/01/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

2
3
4
MELISSA YOUNG, et al.,
5

3:16-cv-00678-VPC
Plaintiffs,

6

v.

7

ORDER

ANDRES MARISCAL, et al.,

8
Defendants.
9
10
11
12

Before the court is the motion of defendants Washoe County School District and Andres

13

Mariscal’s (collectively “defendants”) for reconsideration (ECF No. 39) of this court’s June 12, 2017

14

order denying their motion to dismiss (ECF No. 38). Melissa Young (“plaintiff”) opposed (ECF No.

15

40), and defendants replied (ECF No. 41). For the reasons articulated below, the court denies

16

defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

17

I.

Background and Procedural History

18

On November 22, 2016, plaintiff initiated a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that

19

defendants violated J.B.R.’s Fourth Amendment rights and a series of state law violations, after

20

confronting plaintiff J.B.R. in an open hallway at Sparks Middle School. (ECF No. 10; ECF No. 40

21

at 3.) On January 13, 2017, defendants filed their motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first amended

22

complaint, arguing that plaintiff failed to state a colorable Fourth Amendment claim. (ECF No. 17.)

23

This court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiff properly pled a § 1983

24

claim and that qualified immunity was not available to defendant Mariscal. (ECF No. 38.) On June

25

29, 2017, defendants filed their motion for reconsideration arguing that the court erred in failing to

26

consider the educational context of plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim, and in denying defendant

27
28
-1-

1

Mariscal’s qualified immunity argument. (ECF No. 39 at 5-7.) On July 7, 2017, plaintiff filed her

2

opposition to the motion and requested appropriate sanctions due to defendants’ violation of Local

3

Rule 59-1(b). (ECF No. 40 at 5.) Defendants replied (ECF No. 41).

4

II.

Legal Standard

5

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not contemplate reconsideration of interlocutory

6

orders. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (specifying that this rule only applies to “a final judgment,

7

order, or proceeding”). However, a district court “possesses the inherent procedural power to

8

reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient” so long as

9

it has jurisdiction. City of L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir.

10

2001).

11

Therefore, a motion to reconsider must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason why the

12

court should revisit its prior order; and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing nature” in support

13

of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003).

14

Reconsideration may be appropriate if (1) the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)

15

has committed clear error, or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Sch. Dist.

16

No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Kona Enters.,

17

Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for reconsideration is properly

18

denied where it presents no new arguments. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.

19

1985). However, it “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when

20

they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890.

21

As the case law indicates, motions to reconsider are granted rarely. See, e.g., School Dist. No. 1J, 5

22

F.3d at 1263.

23

III.

24
25
26
27

Discussion
Local Rule 59-1 addresses motions for reconsideration and states:
(a) Motions seeking reconsideration of case-dispositive orders
are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60, as applicable. A party seeking
reconsideration under this rule must state with particularity the points of
law or fact that the court has overlooked or misunderstood. Changes in

28
-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

legal or factual circumstances that may entitle the movant to relief also
must be stated with particularity. The court possesses the inherent power
to reconsider an interlocutory order for cause, so long as the court retains
jurisdiction. Reconsideration also may be appropriate if (1) there is
newly discovered evidence that was not available when the original
motion or response was filed, (2) the court committed clear error or the
initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening
change in controlling law.
(b) Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. A movant must
not repeat arguments already presented unless (and only to the extent)
necessary to explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts.
A movant who repeats arguments will be subject to appropriate
sanctions.

9

Plaintiff contends that defendants violated Local Rule 59-1(b) because defendants have

10

offered no newly discovered evidence, the court did not commit clear error, nor was the decision

11

manifestly unjust, and there is no intervening change in controlling law. The court agrees.

12

Defendants’ motion for reconsideration contains redundant and repetitive arguments that were

13

already presented in their motion to dismiss. (Compare ECF No. 17 with ECF No. 39.) For example,

14

defendants reassert their position, pursuant to New Jersey vs. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 342 (1985), that

15

defendant Mariscal’s actions were reasonable and did not constitute an actionable Fourth Amendment

16

violation. (ECF No. 17 at 13-14; ECF No. 39 at 5.) Defendants also continue to cite non-controlling,

17

out-of-circuit case law that was previously used in their motion to dismiss such as, Gottlieb ex. Rel.

18

v. Laurel Highlands School Dist., 272 F. 3d 168, 178 (3d Cir. 2001), Wallace v. Batavia Sch. Dist.

19

#101, 68 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 1995), and Blau v. Fort Thomas Pub. Sch. Dist., 401 F.3d 381, 393 (6th

20

Cir. 2005). (ECF No. 17 at 12-15; ECF No. 39 at 5-6; ECF No. 41 at 5.) Defendants are admonished

21

not to rely on out-of-circuit precedent before this court as a means to explain controlling, intervening

22

law. Defendants should also thoroughly review and understand the standard for motions for

23

reconsideration and LR 59-1 before filing such a motion. Motions for reconsideration are rarely

24

granted and are reserved for when the (1) the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2)

25

has committed clear error, or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Kona

26

Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). For these reasons, defendants’

27

motion for reconsideration is denied.

28
-3-

1

The court declines to strike defendants’ motion and it will not issue monetary sanctions at this

2

time. However, defendants are strongly urged to review the Local Rules of this court and Ninth

3

Circuit case law before filing such motions in the future.

4

IV.

5
6

Conclusion
For the reasons articulated above, the court denies defendants’ motion for reconsideration

(ECF No. 39).

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: August 1, 2017.
______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-