PATEL-JULSON v. PAUL SMITH LAS VEGAS, INC., 2:12-cv-01023-CWH. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150310e17
Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 09, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 09, 2015
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Third Motion to Reopen (#143), filed March 2, 2015. This is Plaintiff's third motion to reopen and, like the previous requests, will be denied. Other than expressing disagreement with the Court's decision, Plaintiff has not presented any legitimate basis to reopen this case under either Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. A motion for reconsideration is properly denied when the movant fails t
Summary: ORDER C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Third Motion to Reopen (#143), filed March 2, 2015. This is Plaintiff's third motion to reopen and, like the previous requests, will be denied. Other than expressing disagreement with the Court's decision, Plaintiff has not presented any legitimate basis to reopen this case under either Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. A motion for reconsideration is properly denied when the movant fails to..
More
ORDER
C. W. HOFFMAN, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Third Motion to Reopen (#143), filed March 2, 2015. This is Plaintiff's third motion to reopen and, like the previous requests, will be denied. Other than expressing disagreement with the Court's decision, Plaintiff has not presented any legitimate basis to reopen this case under either Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 or 60. A motion for reconsideration is properly denied when the movant fails to establish any reason justifying relief. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir.1985); see also Merozoite v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir.1995); Khan v. Fasano, 194 F.Supp.2d 1134, 1136 (S.D.Cal.2001) ("A party cannot have relief under this rule merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment."). Disagreeing or being unhappy with the decision is not adequate grounds to reopen the case or reconsider the order on summary judgment. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen (#143) is denied.
Source: Leagle
