United States District Court, D. Nevada
the court is the motion of defendants Washoe County School
District and Andres Mariscal's (collectively
“defendants”) for reconsideration (ECF No. 39) of
this court's June 12, 2017 order denying their motion to
dismiss (ECF No. 38). Melissa Young (“plaintiff”)
opposed (ECF No. 40), and defendants replied (ECF No. 41).
For the reasons articulated below, the court denies
defendants' motion for reconsideration.
Background and Procedural History
November 22, 2016, plaintiff initiated a lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that defendants violated
J.B.R.'s Fourth Amendment rights and a series of state
law violations, after confronting plaintiff J.B.R. in an open
hallway at Sparks Middle School. (ECF No. 10; ECF No. 40 at
3.) On January 13, 2017, defendants filed their motion to
dismiss plaintiff's first amended complaint, arguing that
plaintiff failed to state a colorable Fourth Amendment claim.
(ECF No. 17.)
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that
plaintiff properly pled a § 1983 claim and that
qualified immunity was not available to defendant Mariscal.
(ECF No. 38.) On June 29, 2017, defendants filed their motion
for reconsideration arguing that the court erred in failing
to consider the educational context of plaintiffs' Fourth
Amendment claim, and in denying defendant Mariscal's
qualified immunity argument. (ECF No. 39 at 5-7.) On July 7,
2017, plaintiff filed her opposition to the motion and
requested appropriate sanctions due to defendants'
violation of Local Rule 59-1(b). (ECF No. 40 at 5.)
Defendants replied (ECF No. 41).
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not contemplate
reconsideration of interlocutory orders. See, e.g.,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (specifying that this rule only applies
to “a final judgment, order, or proceeding”).
However, a district court “possesses the inherent
procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an
interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be
sufficient” so long as it has jurisdiction. City of
L.A., Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d
882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001).
a motion to reconsider must set forth the following: (1) some
valid reason why the court should revisit its prior order;
and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing
nature” in support of reversing the prior decision.
Frasure v. United States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183
(D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration may be appropriate if (1) the
court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) has
committed clear error, or (3) there has been an intervening
change in controlling law. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
County, Or. v. Acand S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th
Cir. 1993); Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop,
229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for
reconsideration is properly denied where it presents no new
arguments. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386,
1388 (9th Cir. 1985). However, it “may not be used to
raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when
they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the
litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at
890. As the case law indicates, motions to reconsider are
granted rarely. See, e.g., School Dist. No. 1J, 5
F.3d at 1263.
Rule 59-1 addresses motions for reconsideration and states:
(a) Motions seeking reconsideration of
case-dispositive orders are governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 or
60, as applicable. A party seeking reconsideration under this
rule must state with particularity the points of law or fact
that the court has overlooked or misunderstood. Changes in
legal or factual circumstances that may entitle the movant to
relief also must be stated with particularity. The court
possesses the inherent power to reconsider an interlocutory
order for cause, so long as the court retains jurisdiction.
Reconsideration also may be appropriate if (1) there is newly
discovered evidence that was not available when the original
motion or response was filed, (2) the court committed clear
error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3)
if there is an intervening change in controlling law.
(b) Motions for reconsideration are
disfavored. A movant must not repeat arguments already
presented unless (and only to the extent) necessary to
explain controlling, intervening law or to argue new facts. A
movant who repeats arguments will be subject to appropriate
contends that defendants violated Local Rule 59-1(b) because
defendants have offered no newly discovered evidence, the
court did not commit clear error, nor was the decision
manifestly unjust, and there is no intervening change in
controlling law. The court agrees.
motion for reconsideration contains redundant and repetitive
arguments that were already presented in their motion to
dismiss. (Compare ECF No. 17 with ECF No.
39.) For example, defendants reassert their position,
pursuant to New Jersey vs. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 342
(1985), that defendant Mariscal's actions were reasonable
and did not constitute an actionable Fourth Amendment
violation. (ECF No. 17 at 13-14; ECF No. 39 at 5.) Defendants
also continue to cite non-controlling, out-of-circuit case
law that was previously used in their motion to dismiss such
as, Gottlieb ex. Rel. v. Laurel Highlands School
Dist., 272 F.3d 168, 178 (3d Cir. 2001), Wallace v.
Batavia Sch. Dist. #101, 68 F.3d 1010 (7th Cir. 1995),
and Blau v. Fort Thomas Pub. Sch. Dist., 401 F.3d
381, 393 (6th Cir. 2005). (ECF No. 17 at 12-15; ECF No. 39 at
5-6; ECF No. 41 at 5.) Defendants are admonished not to rely
on out-of-circuit precedent before this court as a means to
explain controlling, intervening law. Defendants should also
thoroughly review and understand the standard for motions for
reconsideration and LR 59-1 before filing such a motion.
Motions for reconsideration are rarely granted and are
reserved for when the (1) the court is presented with newly
discovered evidence, (2) has committed clear error, or (3)
there has been an intervening change in controlling law.
Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). For these reasons, defendants'
motion for reconsideration is denied.
court declines to strike defendants' motion and it will
not issue monetary sanctions at this time. However,
defendants are strongly urged to review the Local Rules of
this court and Ninth ...