United States District Court, D. Nevada
J. ALBREGTS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant Plaintiff Brian Sciara's
Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 48) and Motion to Seal
(ECF No. 49) along with the Sealed Motion for Reconsideration
(ECF No. 50), filed on October 3, 2019. Defendant Brian
Sciara filed a Response (ECF No. 52) on October 17, 2019.
Plaintiff filed a Reply (ECF No. 53) on October 24, 2019. The
Court finds this matter properly resolved without a hearing.
See Local Rule 78-1.
parties are familiar with the facts of this case and the
Court will repeat them here only as necessary. This lawsuit
arises out of a business dispute between Plaintiff and
Defendant regarding an alleged joint venture called Sprout
Financial. Defendant moved to dismiss arguing that the Court
lacks personal jurisdiction over him and that the Complaint
fails to state a claim. (ECF No. 5). The Court granted that
motion on September 27, 2019 and closed the case. (ECF No.
46). Plaintiff now files for limited reconsideration only of
the Court's finding of no specific personal jurisdiction.
He claims that new evidence was discovered and the Order was
manifestly unjust or clear error was committed. (ECF No. 48).
Defendant responds that the alleged newly discovered evidence
was known for three to seven months before the Court's
hearing prior to its decision on the motion to dismiss and
the Court properly analyzed the issues in the Order. (ECF No.
52). Plaintiff replies that the case law supports his
contention that Nevada courts may exercise personal
jurisdiction over Campbell and new evidence supports finding
that Defendant made misrepresentations to the Court. (ECF No.
Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows a district court to
reconsider its decision if a motion is filed within 28 days
from the entry of the judgment. A district court has
considerable discretion in ruling on a Rule 59(e) motion.
See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 f.3d 1101, 1111
2 (9th Cir. 2011). “[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). 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 for reconsideration must set forth some valid reason
why the court should revisit its prior order and facts or law
of a “strongly convincing nature” to support
reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United
States, 256 F.Supp.2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003).
Significantly, a motion for reconsideration cannot be used to
reargue issues presented in earlier pleadings. Backlund
v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985).
Court has reviewed its prior Order and the arguments
presented by Plaintiff and Defendants in the filings with
respect to the reconsideration request and has not found any
reason to overturn this Court's finding that it lacks
specific personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff. The Court
finds that Plaintiff has not presented newly discovered
evidence that was not available to it at the time of the
hearing or Order. Furthermore, the Court finds neither clear
error nor manifest injustice in the reasoning of its Order.
Newly Discovered Evidence
order to meet the “newly discovered evidence”
requirement within the meaning of Rules 59, Plaintiff must
show the evidence: “(1) is truly-newly discovered; (2)
could not have been discovered through due diligence; and (3)
is of such a material and controlling nature that it demands
a probable change in the outcome.” United States v.
Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1130 n. 45
(E.D.Cal. 2001); see also Coastal Transfer Co. v. Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987).
Failure to file documents in an original motion or opposition
does not turn the late-filed documents into newly discovered
evidence. See School Dist. No. 1J., 5 F.3d at 1263.
Under Rule 59, if the evidence was in the possession of the
party before the judgment was rendered it is not newly
discovered. See Coastal Transfer, 833 F.2d at 212.
the September 5, 2019 hearing on Defendant's motion to
dismiss, Plaintiff noted that Defendant never requested an
evidentiary hearing on the issue of personal jurisdiction.
(Tr., ECF No. 51, 17:19-23). Further, Plaintiff never
requested any additional jurisdictional discovery as he
argued that the Court could resolve the issue based on
“the verified allegations in the complaint, [and] the
declaration that was offered by Mr. Sciara” along with
reasonable inferences that derive from them. (Id. at
18: 14-16). Similarly, Defendant never requested any
jurisdictional discovery as he argued that “the record
is pretty clear” based on the “allegations
contained in the verified complaint, [and] Mr. Campbell
provided a very detailed declaration which identified his
contacts, or lack thereof.” (Id. at
50:23-51:2). Additionally, neither party requested any
supplemental briefing before, during, or after the hearing.
Accordingly, the Court's Order clearly found that it
would decline to exercise its discretion to permit discovery
on jurisdictional facts. It stated, “Plaintiff did not
request jurisdictional discovery and the Court finds that
facts included in the Complaint and two Declarations to be
sufficient to decide the jurisdictional challenge at this
time.” (ECF No. 46, 13:19-21).
first time, Plaintiff now claims that there is newly
discovered evidence that warrants reconsideration of the
Court's Order. The Court denies Plaintiff's motion
for reconsideration on this basis because the evidence was
available to Plaintiff and he failed to show good cause for
his failure to file it with his motion or reply to the motion
to dismiss. Indeed, Plaintiff's assertions are based
almost entirely on his own personal knowledge or knowledge
gained during discovery that could have been raised in the
reply to the motion to dismiss, at the hearing, or in a
request for supplemental briefing. As such, the evidence
raised by Plaintiff is not truly newly discovered evidence.
Had Plaintiff exercised diligence at the time of the hearing,
the evidence could have been presented to the Court prior to
the issuance of the order granting Defendant's motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff cannot bear his burden of showing he has
newly discovered evidence and therefore, the Court cannot
alter or amend judgment on this ground.
Clear Error or ...