Angle v. Miller

Full title: SHARRON ANGLE, an individual. et al., Plaintiffs, v. ROSS MILLER, in his…

Court: United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Oct 18, 2010

2:09-CV-1969 JCM (LRL) (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2010)

Opinion

2:09-CV-1969 JCM (LRL).

October 18, 2010

ORDER

JAMES MAHAN, District Judge

Presently before the court is plaintiffs Sharron Angle et al's motion to reconsider ruling by the district judge (doc. # 21). Defendant Ross Miller filed an opposition (doc. #26). Plaintiffs filed a reply (doc. 27).

"Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) 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 v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b).

Plaintiffs assert that they did not clearly explain their position and that they may have "confused the court." However, plaintiffs have failed to provide the court with new law, new facts, or new evidence indicating that any of the circumstances enumerated by the Ninth Circuit are present here warranting reconsideration or any other relief.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider ruling by the district judge (doc. # 21) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

DATED this 18^th day of October, 2010.