Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

PETROVA v. RICHLAND HOLDINGS, INC., 2:15-cv-0795-JAD-VCF. (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20161025b62 Visitors: 4
Filed: Sep. 28, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 28, 2016
Summary: Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 44] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . At a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in March 2016, I granted summary judgment in defendant's favor on plaintiff Dilyana Petrova's second and third claims for relief, leaving only her first claim for relief for trial. 1 Petrova now asks me to reconsider my entry of summary judgment on her third claim for relief, arguing that my decision was plagued by a math error. 2 I d
More

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

[ECF No. 44]

At a hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in March 2016, I granted summary judgment in defendant's favor on plaintiff Dilyana Petrova's second and third claims for relief, leaving only her first claim for relief for trial.1 Petrova now asks me to reconsider my entry of summary judgment on her third claim for relief, arguing that my decision was plagued by a math error.2 I do not find that reconsideration is warranted, so I deny the motion.

District courts possess the "inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory order for cause, so long as the court retains jurisdiction."3 "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) there is an intervening change in controlling law."4

Petrova has not demonstrated that reconsideration is appropriate. She made the very arguments she now makes during the summary-judgment hearing, and I was not persuaded by them then. I am no more persuaded by them now, and she has not shown that my decision was based on clear error or was manifestly unjust. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration Regarding the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to her Third Cause of Action and Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action [ECF No. 44] is DENIED. The parties have until Friday, October 28, 2016, to file their Joint Pretrial Order. This case is referred to the Magistrate Judge to schedule a mandatory settlement conference.

FootNotes


1. ECF No. 15, 29, 24, 30, 43 (minutes).
2. ECF No. 44.
3. L.R. 59-1(a); accord City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (collecting cases).
4. L.R. 59-1(a).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer