Wang v. Nevada System of Higher Education

Filing 101

ORDER denying Plaintiff's ECF No. 100 Objection, construed as a Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

GUANGYU WANG,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00075-MMD-CBC
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER

v.
9
10
11

NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

12
13

This is a Title VII retaliation case brought by a pro se plaintiff. The Court previously

14

granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Nevada System of Higher Education as

15

to the following issues: (1) damages in connection with Plaintiff Guangyu Wang’s first two

16

claims; (2) liability in connection with his third claim; and (3) liability in connection with the

17

fourth claim. (ECF No. 97 at 1 (“Order”).) Plaintiff filed an objection to the Order under

18

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 46. (ECF No. 100.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s

19

objection as a motion for reconsideration. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir.

20

2011) (quoting Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000)) (“[C]ourts must

21

construe pro se pleadings liberally.”). So construed, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

22

A motion to reconsider must set forth “some valid reason why the court should

23

reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to

24

persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp.

25

2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented

26

with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was

27

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No.

28

1J v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not

1

an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has

2

ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005).

3

Plaintiff’s motion does not present newly discovered evidence, show that the Court

4

committed clear error, show that the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or demonstrate

5

an intervening change in controlling law. Rather, Plaintiff’s motion seeks to re-litigate the

6

same issues and arguments upon which the Court already has ruled.

7
8
9

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 100), construed as a motion
for reconsideration, is denied.
DATED THIS 23rd day of May 2019.

10
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2