United States District Court, D. Nevada
LINDA PETERSON; et. al, Plaintiffs,
KEVIN MIRANDA; et. al, Defendants
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Linda Peterson, individually, and on behalf of, Angela Peterson, Francis C Peterson, individually, and on behalf of, Angela Peterson, Plaintiffs: Marc P Cook, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bailus Cook & Kelesis, Ltd., Las Vegas, NV.
For Kevin Miranda, Defendant: James P Silvestri, LEAD ATTORNEY, Christopher M. Keller, Pyatt Silvestri & Hanlon, Chtd., Las Vegas, NV; Kara B. Hendricks, Greenberg Traurig LLP, LAS VEGAS, NV.
For Clark County School District Police, Filiberto Arroyo, Defendants: Kara B. Hendricks, Moorea L Katz, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Greenberg Traurig LLP, LAS VEGAS, NV; Mark E Ferrario, LEAD ATTORNEY, Tami D. Cowden, Greenberg Traurig, Las Vegas, NV.
For Roberto Morales, Defendant: Dan R Waite, Lindsay C Demaree, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Matthew W Park, Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Las Vegas, NV; Daniel F. Polsenberg, Lewis and Roca LLP, Las Vegas, NV.
For Brian Nebeker, Defendant: Mark E Ferrario, LEAD ATTORNEY, Tami D. Cowden, Greenberg Traurig, Las Vegas, NV; Kara B. Hendricks, Moorea L Katz, Greenberg Traurig LLP, LAS VEGAS, NV.
For Mark Robbins, Tina Zuniga, Cynthia Robbins, formerly known as, Cynthia Ruelas, also known as, Cynthia Ruelas-Robbins, Defendants: Dan R Waite, LEAD ATTORNEY, Lindsay C Demaree, Matthew W Park, Lewis Roca Rothgerber, LLP, Las Vegas, NV; Daniel F. Polsenberg, Lewis and Roca LLP, Las Vegas, NV.
For Loren Johnson, Armando Quintanilla, Defendants: Mark E Ferrario, LEAD ATTORNEY, Tami D. Cowden, Greenberg Traurig, Las Vegas, NV; Kara B. Hendricks, Moorea L Katz, Greenberg Traurig LLP, LAS VEGAS, NV.
LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Before the court is defendants the Clark County School District (" CCSD" ), Filiberto Arroyo (" Arroyo" ), Brian Nebeker (" Nebeker" ), Loren Johnson (" Johnson" ), and Armando Quintanilla's (" Quintanilla" ) (collectively " moving defendants" ) motion for reconsideration of the court's January 10, 2014 order denying in-part and granting in-part their motion for summary judgment (Doc. #254 Doc. #257. Plaintiffs Linda and Francis Peterson (" the Petersons" ) filed an opposition (Doc. #261) to which moving defendants replied (Doc. #265).
I. Facts and Procedural History
This action arises from the tragic death of the Petersons' daughter, Angela Peterson.
On November 28, 2009, non-party Rebecca Wamsley (" Wamsley" ), a dispatcher for the CCSD Police Department (" department" ), hosted a holiday party at her home and invited members of the department and their families. Defendant Tina Zuniga (" Zuniga" ) attended the holiday party with her daughter and her daughter's eighteen (18) year old boyfriend, defendant Kevin Miranda (" Miranda" ). Despite being underage, Miranda drank alcohol provided at the party. Miranda then left the party intoxicated, ran a red light, and crashed his parents' truck into the vehicle driven by Angela Peterson, killing her. Miranda subsequently pled guilty to a category B felony, and is currently serving an eighty (80) month prison sentence.
On October 20, 2011, the Petersons filed a complaint for wrongful death against all defendants. Doc. #1, Exhibit 1. On June 5, 2013, the Petersons filed a second amended complaint against defendants alleging thirteen causes of action: (1) negligence against all defendants; (2) negligence against Eric Miranda and Chary Alvarado Miranda (" Miranda's parents" ); (3) violation of NRS § 41.440 against Miranda's parents; (4) violation of NRS § 41.1305 against defendants Zuniga, Cynthia
Ruelas, Mark W. Robbins, and Roberto Morales; (5) constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against CCSD and all CCSD employee defendants; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants; (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress against all defendants; (8) negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against CCSD; (9) ratification against CCSD; (10) respondent superior against CCSD; (11) punitive damages against CCSD and all CCSD employee defendants; (12) punitive damages against Miranda; and (13) civil conspiracy against CCSD and all CCSD employee defendants. See Doc. #172.
In response, moving defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on several of the Petersons' claims. Doc. #202. On January 10, 2014, the court granted in-part and denied in-part moving defendants' motion. Doc. #254. Thereafter, moving defendants filed the present motion for reconsideration of the court's January order. Doc. #257.
II. Legal Standard
A motion for reconsideration is an " extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 59(e) provides that a district court may reconsider a prior order where the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, an intervening change of controlling law, manifest injustice, or where the prior order was clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); see also United States v. Cuddy, 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998) ; Sch. Dist. Co. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Further, a district court " possesses the inherent procedural power to ...