United States District Court, D. Nevada
COPPER SANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. et al., Plaintiffs,
COPPER SANDS REALTY, LLC et al., Defendants.
M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court
before the Court is Plaintiff Copper Sands Homeowners
Association, Inc.'s (“Plaintiff's”)
Motion to Amend Judgment. (ECF No. 897). Also pending before
the Court is Defendant DFT, Inc. dba The Cannon Management
Company's (“Defendant's”) Motion to Amend
Judgment. (ECF No. 898). Both motions are fully briefed.
case arose from alleged defects in the Copper Sands
Condominiums that were converted from apartment homes to
condominiums and subsequently purchased by
individuals. (Third Am. Compl., ECF No. 154). Plaintiff
entered into an Association Management Agreement with
Defendant, wherein Defendant agreed to be Plaintiff's
managing agent with respect to the Copper Sands Condominiums.
(Agreement, Ex. 9 to Def.'s Mot. Att'y Fees, ECF No.
861-9). After extensive pretrial litigation, on January 4,
2016, the parties began a jury trial on Plaintiff's
breach of contract claim. (See ECF No. 794-95). On
February 4, 2016, after eighteen days of trial, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of Defendant. (See ECF
No. 846, 851). On February 22, 2016, Defendant filed a Motion
for Attorneys' Fees (ECF No. 861), which the Court
granted in part and denied in part (ECF No. 895). On
September 30, 2016, the Court entered Judgment in favor of
Defendant for attorneys' fees in the amount of $951,
656.60. (ECF No. 896). Additionally, on March 31, 2016, costs
were taxed in favor of Defendant in the amount of $53,
537.65. (ECF No. 874). On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed its
instant motion, and on October 28, 2016, Defendant filed its
instant motion. (ECF Nos. 897, 898).
motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent
highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v.
Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation
omitted); Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d
656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (discussing Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (“FRCP” or “Rule”) 59(e)).
Reconsideration is appropriate where: (1) the court is
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the court
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, Multnomah County v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
motion to amend or correct a judgment can be brought under
Rules 59(e) and 60. Rule 59(e) states: “A motion to
alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days
after the entry of the judgment.” Further, Rule 60,
governing relief from a judgment or order, 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 misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged;
it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable;
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A motion for reconsideration is not a
mechanism for rearguing issues presented in the original
filings. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 ...