United States District Court, D. Nevada
THI OF NEVADA AT HENDERSON CONVALESCENT, LLC d/b/a HENDERSON HEALTHCARE CENTER, et al., Plaintiff(s),
ALGENE WUCINICH, as personal representative of the Estate of RUBY HAPPEL-HOLTZ, Defendant(s)
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs THI of Nevada at Henderson Convalescent, LLC, d/b/a Henderson Healthcare Center, and THI of Nevada, LLC (hereinafter "plaintiffs"). (Doc. # 36). Defendant Algene Wucinich (hereinafter "defendant"), personal representative of the estate of Ruby Happel-Holtz, filed a response, (doc. # 38), and plaintiffs filed a reply, (doc. # 40).
On March 31, 2012, Happel-Holtz was admitted to the Henderson Healthcare Center ("HHC"), a facility owned and operated by plaintiffs, for rehabilitation following surgery on her right arm and collar bone. On April 28, 2012, Happel-Holtz was transferred to St. Rose Siena Hospital and diagnosed with sepsis. On May 12, 2012, Happel-Holtz went into septic shock and died.
On May 8, 2013, defendant filed a complaint in state court against plaintiffs, alleging abuse, neglect, and improper care of Happel-Holtz, which resulted in her death.
On November 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion to compel arbitration based on an arbitration provision in their agreement with Happel-Holtz. (Doc. # 5). Defendant filed a response, (doc. # 9), and plaintiffs filed a reply, (doc. # 29).
On July 30, 2014, the court denied without prejudice plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration. (Doc. # 35). The court determined that there were genuine factual disputes as to whether the parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement. (Doc. # 35).
In particular, the court found a dispute as to whether Happel-Holtz gave Dana Polin, the former assistant to the facility's director of admissions, express authority to initial the arbitration agreement on Happel-Holtz's behalf. (Doc. # 35).
Plaintiffs then filed the instant motion for reconsideration.
II. Legal Standard
A motion for reconsideration "should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances." Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). "Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). "A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).
In the instant motion, plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider and/or clarify its order denying plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration. (Doc. # 36).
Plaintiffs fail to allege any "unusual circumstances" warranting reconsideration of the court's July 30, 2014, order. See Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 890. The evidence that plaintiffs cite is not new, and plaintiffs do not contend ...