1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 WILBERT R. HOLMES, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-00547-GMN-NJK 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 RV RETAILER, TEXAS, LLC D/B/A ) 7 MOTOR HOME SPECIALIST, ) ) 8 Defendant. ) ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Wilbert Holmes’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion to Reopen 11 Case, (ECF No. 18).1 Defendant RV Retailer, Texas, LLC d/b/a Motor Home Specialist 12 (“Defendant”) filed a Response, (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff did not file a Reply. For the reasons 13 discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 This case arises from the allegedly wrongful and unlawful sale of Class A Motorhome. 16 (Compl., Ex. 1 to Pet. Removal, ECF No. 1-2). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sold him a 17 dangerous and unworthy vehicle, which caused Plaintiff to suffer physical harm, insult, 18 humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and distress. (Id.). 19 On May 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant case in the Eighth Judicial District, alleging 20 bodily endangerment, violation of Lemon Law, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 21 (See id.). Defendant thereafter removed the case to federal court. (See Pet. Removal, ECF No. 22 1). On April 9, 2021, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint, alleging lack of personal 23 24 25 1 In light of Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant, the Court liberally construes his filings, holding them to standards less stringent than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. See Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). 1 jurisdiction and failure to state a plausible claim. (See Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 7). Plaintiff did 2 not file a Response. On October 5, 2021, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as 3 unopposed pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d). (See Min. Order, ECF No. 16). Plaintiff thereafter 4 filed the instant Motion to Reopen Case, (ECF No. 18). 5 II. LEGAL STANDARD 6 Although not mentioned in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, motions for 7 reconsideration may be brought under Rules 59 and 60. Rule 59(e) provides that any motion to 8 alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment. The 9 Ninth Circuit has held that a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration should not be granted 10 “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 11 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 12 controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co.,

, 13 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold,

(9th Cir. 14 1999)). 15 Under Rule 60(b), a court may, upon motion and just terms, “relieve a party . . . from a 16 final judgment,” on the ground that the “judgment is void[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). A 17 judgment is “void only if the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject 18 matter, or of the parties, or if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” 19 In re Ctr. Wholesale, Inc.,

, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985). Additionally, under Rule 20 60(b), a court may relieve a party from a final judgment, order or proceeding only in the 21 following circumstances: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly

22 discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or 23 (6) any other reason justifying relief from the judgment. Stewart v. Dupnik,

, 549 24 (9th Cir. 2000). Rule 60(b) relief should only be granted under “extraordinary circumstances.” 25 Buck v. Davis,

,

(2017). 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff requests the Court reconsider its decision granting the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF 3 No. 16). (See Mot. Reopen Case, ECF No. 18). Plaintiff asserts that “he did not receive any 4 notices of the proceedings of the matter as [he] was extremely ill and hospitalized during the 5 deadline to file a response, April 26, 2021.” (See id.).2 6 A motion for reconsideration must set forth the following: (1) some valid reason why the 7 court should revisit its prior order; and (2) facts or law of a “strongly convincing nature” in 8 support of reversing the prior decision. Frasure v. United States,

(D.

). Plaintiff, in this case, fails to provide both a valid reason and evidence supporting 10 reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order. Plaintiff argues that he did not receive notice of the 11 proceedings of the matter. (See Mot. Reopen Case, ECF No. 18). However, according to the 12 docket, Plaintiff received notice that his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was explicitly due 13 fourteen (14) days from the entry of the Minute Order. (See Min. Order, ECF No. 8). The 14 Court notified Plaintiff via his provided postal address. (See id.). Though Plaintiff was 15 seemingly unable to respond due to a personal illness, the record demonstrates that Plaintiff 16 received ample notice regarding the Motion to Dismiss. King v. Atiyeh,

(9th 17 Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other 18 litigants.”). Plaintiff does not otherwise provide any unusual circumstances that would justify 19 granting reconsideration. The Court thus finds neither clear error nor manifest injustice in the 20 reasoning of its previous Order, and therefore, the criteria for reconsideration have not been 21 met.

22 23 24

25 2 Though not explicitly phrased as a motion for reconsideration, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s motion as a Motion for Reconsideration. See Erickson,

. 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Case, (ECF No. 18), is 3 DENIED. 4 DATED this __4___ day of May, 2022. 5 6 _________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 7 United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25