United States District Court, D. Nevada
Hoffman, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge.
before the Court is pro se Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration (ECF No. 45), filed on January 8, 2018.
Defendants Fidelity National Default, LSI Title Agency, Inc.,
Servicelink, Chicago Title Agency Nevada, and Loancare filed
a response (ECF No. 48) on January 9, 2018. Plaintiff did not
file a reply.
before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for clarification
of order (ECF No. 62), filed on February 6, 2018. Defendants
have not filed a response.
Motion for Reconsideration
moves for reconsideration of the Court's order (ECF No.
40) granting Defendants' motions for demand of security
costs (ECF Nos. 10 and 24). Plaintiff argues that the order
was made based on a misunderstanding of her correct address
and place of residence. Defendants oppose the motion, arguing
that Plaintiff has not shown that the Court has made any
error regarding her address or place of residence.
brings her motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60,
which provides two categories of relief. First, Rule 60(a)
allows for the Court to correct clerical mistakes,
oversights, or omissions in an order. Plaintiff does not
argue that the Court made any such mistake, and the Court
does not find any. Second, under Rule 60(b), a Court can
relieve a party from an order 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). Construing Plaintiff's claims
liberally, the Court will also consider the request as a
motion for reconsideration, which requires that a moving
party demonstrate that there is newly discovered evidence
that was not available when the original motion was filed,
that the court committed clear error or the initial decision
was manifestly unjust, or that there was an intervening
change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1. Defendants'
motions for demand of security costs were brought under Nev.
Rev. Stat. 18.130, which provides that “[w]hen a
plaintiff in an action resides out of the State [of Nevada],
or is a foreign corporation, security for the costs and
charges which may be awarded against such plaintiff may be
required by the defendant[.]”
Court's order granting Defendants' motions was based
on a finding that Plaintiff was a resident of California.
Order, at p. 2. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is
based on her contention that she is also a resident of
Nevada. Plaintiff argued in her response to the original
motions that she is a resident of Nevada because she
“has maintained a residence in Nevada for over fifteen
years[, ] owning properties as second homes in Las Vegas,
Nevada.” Resp. to Mot. at p. 6 (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff
further asserted in her response that she “does reside
and has intended to reside in both Los Angeles and Las
Vegas” and that she “acquired more than one piece
of property in Las Vegas and does reside there, maintain her
second home . . . Plaintiff currently maintains a physical
residence in both cities . . . her intent is to reside in
both Los Angeles and Los Vegas [sic].” Id. at
6-7. Based on these representations, and the exclusive use of
a Los Angeles, California ...