Opinion
2:14-cv-00560-JAD-NJK
05-04-2015
HAROLD D. HARDEN, Plaintiff, v. SOBORO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
(Docket No. 77)
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for the undersigned to reconsider her order extending the time to file dispositive motions. See Docket No. 77; see also Docket No. 76 (order extending the time to file dispositive motions). Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 79. No reply was filed. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby DENIED.
Defendants acknowledge that their response was untimely. Docket No. 29 at 2 n.1. The Court will consider the opposition in this case, but reminds counsel that the Court expects strict compliance with the Local Rules in the future.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. E.g., Kabo Tools Co. v. Porauto Indus. Co., 2013 WL 5947138, *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing Japan Cash Mach. Co. v. Mei, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 98778, *7 (D. Nev. Nov. 20, 2008)). "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." Kabo Tools, 2013 WL 5947138, at *2 (quoting Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2004)). Having reviewed Plaintiff's pending motion, the Court finds that none of those circumstances exist such that the Court's prior order should be changed.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 4, 2015
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE