United States District Court, D. Nevada
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court is "Plaintiff's Request for Clarification of Order and/or Reconsideration of Order" (ECF No. 21) filed by Plaintiff Marian Orr, to which Defendant Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine ("the Board") has filed a Response. Plaintiff filed no Reply, and the deadline to do so has expired.
Also before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 25) filed by the Board, to which Plaintiff has filed a Response (ECF No. 27), and the Board filed a Reply (ECF No. 30).
The motions currently pending before the Court arise from the Court's September 20, 2013, Order (ECF No. 20) denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 9), and granting in part, and denying in part Defendants' Countermotion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14). In the Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against all defendants except the Nevada State Board of Osteopathic Medicine. (ECF No. 20.)
A. "Plaintiff's Request for Clarification of Order and/or Reconsideration of Order" (ECF No. 21)
Plaintiff responded to the Court's Order with a motion styled as "Plaintiff's Request for Clarification of Order and/or Reconsideration of Order" (ECF No. 21), filed on November 6, 2013. In that motion, Plaintiff states that the "Court made two statements which are concerning, " and "requests that the Court elaborate on these issues." ( Id. ) Defendant filed its Response (ECF No. 24) on November 20, 2013, and Plaintiff failed to file any Reply.
In her motion, Plaintiff provides no legal authority for requesting "clarification" of a Court order. However, Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may provide a standard for reconsideration here. Rule 60 governs relief from a judgment or order, and provides in part:
(b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or ...