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)

Download PDF
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-

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?