Breslaw v. State of Nevada, ex rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 LISA BRESLAW, 6 Case No. 2:23-cv-01680-APG-MDC Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket Nos. 44, 55] STATE OF NEVADA ex rel. BOARD OF 9 REGENTS OF THE NEVADA SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION ON BEHALF OF 10 COLLEGE OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, 11 Defendant. 12 On December 29, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for continuation of the early 13 neutral evaluation. Docket No. 43. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for 14 reconsideration of that order. Docket Nos. 44.1 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s motion, 15 Defendant’s response, and Plaintiff’s reply. Docket Nos. 52, 56.2 The motions are properly 16 resolved without a hearing. Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is 17 DENIED. 18 “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Koninklijke Philips 19 Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007) (citation and internal 20 quotations omitted). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b). The Local 21 1 The Court construes pro se filings liberally. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 22 (9th Cir. 2013). 23 2 Plaintiff filed a motion to file supplemental material in support of her motion for reconsideration. Docket No. 55. Plaintiff seeks to submit a letter from her mother to support that 24 she was having an anxiety attack during the early neutral evaluation. Docket No. 55 at 2. Under Local Rule 7-2(g), a party may not file supplemental briefs or evidence without leave of court, 25 which is granted for good cause. The Court will only find good cause if the proposed briefing will make a substantive difference. See, e.g., Morrison v. Quest Diagnostic Inc., 2016 WL 6246306, 26 at *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 24, 2016), aff’d, 698 F.App’x 350 (9th Cir. 2017). Even if the Court considered Plaintiff’s additional filing, Plaintiff’s mother was not in attendance at the early neutral evaluation 27 and is not able to attest to Plaintiff’s behavior during the evaluation. Because the letter does not impact the Court’s ultimate analysis and decision, Plaintiff’s motion to file supplemental material 28 is DENIED. Docket No. 55. 1 Rules provide the applicable standards in addressing whether the Court should reconsider an 2 interlocutory order, indicating that reconsideration may be appropriate if (1) there is newly 3 discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or response was filed, (2) the 4 Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an 5 intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). A motion for reconsideration is 6 properly denied where it presents no new arguments. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 7 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). By the same token, however, it “may not be used to raise arguments or 8 present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in 9 litigation.” Kona Enterps., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 10 Even liberally construing the motion, the Court finds that Plaintiff fails to establish grounds 11 for reconsideration. Plaintiff submits that the Court committed clear error in denying her motion 12 for continuation of the early neutral evaluation because she was suffering from an anxiety attack. 13 Docket No. 44 at 2; Docket No. 56 at 2-5. Essentially, this is the same argument that she raised in 14 her initial motion. See Docket No. 39 at 1-2. Aside from being procedurally improper, Plaintiff’s 15 argument fails because at no point during the early neutral evaluation did Plaintiff suggest she was 16 having an anxiety attack or act in a manner that caused the Court concern about her condition or 17 her decision-making ability.3 Despite the Court informing Plaintiff multiple times that she did not 18 have to accept any settlement offers during the early neutral evaluation, a review of the record 19 demonstrates that Plaintiff agreed to the settlement terms on the record, which made the settlement 20 agreement binding.4 See Harper v. Nev. Prop. 1, LLC, 552 F.Supp. 3d 1033, 1043 (D. Nev. 2021). 21 Therefore, the Court has not committed clear error and reconsideration is not appropriate. See 22 Milenbach v. C.I.R., 318 F.3d 924, 935 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Clear error exists only when the reviewing 23 court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed”) (internal 24 quotation marks and citation omitted)). 25 3 Plaintiff also submits a psychiatric evaluation demonstrating her history of anxiety and 26 panic attacks. See Docket No. 44 at 5. Such evidence is unpersuasive, as it does not demonstrate Plaintiff was having an anxiety attack during the early neutral evaluation. 27 4 Further, Plaintiff’s actions in the days following the early neutral evaluation clearly 28 demonstrate that she understood that she had agreed to settle the case. See Docket No. 52 at 2-3. ] Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Docket No. 44. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: January 29, 2024 A. 5 Unite 8 Korps agistrate Judge : 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28