Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Copper Sands Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Copper Sands Realty, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

September 29, 2017

COPPER SANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
COPPER SANDS REALTY, LLC et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Court

         Pending 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.

         I. BACKGROUND

         This case arose from alleged defects in the Copper Sands Condominiums that were converted from apartment homes to condominiums and subsequently purchased by individuals.[1] (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).[2] On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed its instant motion, and on October 28, 2016, Defendant filed its instant motion. (ECF Nos. 897, 898).

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         “[A] 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).

         A 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; or
(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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.