United States District Court, D. Nevada
Milton O. Crawford, Plaintiff,
Smith's Food and Drug Centers, Inc., et al., Defendants.
GLORIA M. NAVARRO, Chief District Judge.
Pending before the Court are the Motions to Reconsider, (ECF Nos. 203, 204, 205), filed by pro se Plaintiff Milton O. Crawford. Defendant Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. ("Smith's") has filed Responses, (ECF Nos. 206, 207), and Plaintiff filed Replies. (ECF Nos. 211, 212).
Plaintiff filed his original Complaint in this action on January 23, 2012, which set forth claims for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress, harassment, defamation, employment discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination against Defendant Smith's. (Compl. 3:12-16, ECF No. 1-1). On May 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, naming Kroger Company ("Kroger") as an additional defendant. (Am. Compl., ECF No 16). Pursuant to the parties' stipulated Scheduling Order, discovery in this case was originally scheduled to close on January 14, 2013. (Sched. Order 2:12-17, ECF No 51). On September 23, 2013, the Court ordered that Plaintiff pay attorneys' fees, in an amount to be determined later, for costs incurred by Defendants due to three frivolous motions for default judgment. (Order 4:20-24, ECF No 142). On March 31, 2014, Judge Foley ruled that an award of $4, 093.75 was appropriate to compensate Defendants for Plaintiff's conduct. (Order, ECF No. 197).
On February 28, 2014, after Plaintiff consistently failed to cooperate with discovery requests in defiance of direct Orders, Magistrate Judge George Foley issued a Report and Recommendation stating that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 194). On April 9, 2014, the Court adopted Judge Foley's Report and Recommendation and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice. (ECF No. 201).
In the instant Motions, Plaintiff argues that (1) the dismissal of his Amended Complaint was premature, as he was entitled to default judgment against Defendant Kroger, and (2) his six motions requesting entry of default against Defendant Kroger were not redundant. (ECF Nos. 203, 204, 205).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A. Reconsideration of this Court's Prior Orders
Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides a standard by which the Court may reconsider its Orders. This rule, governing relief from a judgment or order, provides in part:
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 ...