Taylor v. Costco Wholesale Corporation ( 2019 )

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 LULA TAYLOR, Case No. 3:18-cv-00586-MMD-CBC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 COSTCO WHOLESALE 9 CORPORATION, 10 Defendant. 11 12 Plaintiff Lula Taylor initiated this action pro se to assert a claim for negligence 13 arising from an incident where she slipped and fell from a liquid substance on the floor of 14 an aisle at Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation’s premises. (ECF No. 1 at 8-9.) 15 Before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 79) to United States Magistrate Judge 16 Carla Baldwin Carry’s order requiring Plaintiff to file a notice of change of address (ECF 17 No. 77). Additionally before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 80) to Judge 18 Carry’s ruling (ECF No. 74) lifting the discovery stay and requiring Plaintiff to comply with 19 the Court’s order (ECF No. 36) to supplement her discovery responses. Given that the 20 Court already ruled on Plaintiff’s second set of objections (see ECF No. 78), the Court 21 construes the second set of objections as a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons 22 discussed herein, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and denies Plaintiff’s motion for 23 reconsideration. 24 Magistrate judges are authorized to resolve pretrial matters subject to district court 25 review under a “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (a “district judge . . . must consider timely objections and modify or 27 set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law”); see also LR 28 IB 3-1(a) (“A district judge may reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a magistrate judge 2 order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”). A magistrate judge’s order is “clearly 3 erroneous” if the court has a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 4 committed.” See United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). “An order 5 is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules 6 of procedure.” Jadwin v. County of Kern, 767 F. Supp. 2d 1069, 1110-11 (E.D. Cal. 2011) 7 (quoting DeFazio v. Wallis, 459 F. Supp. 2d 159, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). When reviewing 8 the order, however, the magistrate judge “is afforded broad discretion, which will be 9 overruled only if abused.” Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Bunnell, 245 F.R.D. 443, 446 (C.D. 10 Cal. 2007). The district judge “may not simply substitute its judgment” for that of the 11 magistrate judge. Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 241 (9th Cir. 12 1991) (citing United States v. BNS, Inc., 858 F.2d 456, 464 (9th Cir. 1988)). 13 Plaintiff’s objections to Judge Carry’s minute order requiring her to update her 14 address will be overruled. While Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address on July 31, 15 2019 (ECF No. 72), mail sent to that address was returned as undeliverable (ECF No. 75). 16 Plaintiff must provide the Court with an address at which she can receive mail. See LR IA 17 3-1. 18 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 80) of the Court’s order overruling 19 her earlier objections (ECF No. 78) will be denied. A motion to reconsider must set forth 20 “some valid reason why the court should reconsider its prior decision” and set “forth facts 21 or law of a strongly convincing nature to persuade the court to reverse its prior decision.” 22 Frasure v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1183 (D. Nev. 2003). Reconsideration is 23 appropriate if this Court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed 24 clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening 25 change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 26 1993). “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to re-litigate the same issues and 27 arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” Brown v. Kinross Gold, U.S.A., 378 28 /// 1 || F. Supp. 2d 1280, 1288 (D. Nev. 2005). Plaintiff's motion is not rooted in any valid ground 2 || for reconsideration. 3 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 79) are overruled. 4 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 80), construed as a motion 5 || for reconsideration, are denied. 6 DATED THIS 21% day of August 2019. 7 IRANDA M. DU 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28