GW Grundbesitz AG v. Gunn

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 25, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02074
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 GW Grundbesitz AG, Case No. 2:21-cv-02074-CDS-NJK

5 Plaintiff Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, or in the 6 v. Alternative, for Reconsideration

7 Lezlie Gunn,

8 Defendant [ECF Nos. 105, 106]

9 10 On May 29, 2025, I issued an order directing the parties to meet and confer, and 11 thereafter file a proposed joint pretrial order (JPTO) so this action could proceed to trial on the 12 issues of damages only. Order, ECF No. 102. On June 12, 2025, defendant Lezlie Gunn filed a 13 motion for judgment on the pleadings, or in the alternative, reconsideration1 of this court’s 14 granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff GW Grundbesitz. See Mots., ECF Nos. 105, 106 15 (referencing Omnibus Order, ECF No. 73). Having reviewed the filings, I have determined that I 16 do not need a response from plaintiff to resolve the pending motions. For the reasons set forth 17 herein, the motions are denied. 18 I. Discussion 19 “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), judgment on the pleadings is proper when, 20 accepting all material allegations in the nonmoving party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is 21 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wildseed Mobile LLC v. Google LLC, 676 F. Supp. 3d 766, 22 772 (N.D. Cal. 2023); New York v. Micron Tech., Inc., 2009 WL 29883 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2009) (To 23 prevail on a Rule 12(c) motion, a plaintiff must “clearly establish on the face of the pleadings that 24 no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of 25

26 1 Because reconsideration was presented as an alternative argument to Gunn’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, the motion is docketed twice, in accordance with the local rules. For ease, the court only refers to ECF No. 105 herein. 1 law.” (cleaned up)). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is clear, however, that motions for 2 judgment on the pleadings may not delay trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (emphasis added). 3 Gunn filed her motion for judgment on the pleadings seemingly on the issue of damages.2 4 See ECF No. 105 at 1. But a closer look reveals the motion is, in fact, for reconsideration and 5 therefore an attempt to relitigate her previously denied motion to dismiss, specifically on the 6 question of punitive damages. Compare ECF No. 105 at 8–9 (arguing plaintiff’s prayer for punitive 7 damages lacks sufficient facts to demonstrate oppression, fraud, or malice) with Mot. to dismiss, 8 ECF No. 7 at 9–10 (arguing the prayer for punitive damages lacks supporting facts 9 demonstrating oppression, fraud, or malice). This is improper because Gunn’s reconsideration is 10 untimely. To the extent Gunn misapprehends the court’s decision directing the parties to meet 11 and confer, and thereafter file the JPTO for trial on the question of damages, I determined that 12 plaintiff is entitled a trial on that issue. Under Nevada law, punitive damages may be awarded 13 upon clear and convincing evidence of fraud, oppression, or malice, express or implied. In re USA 14 Com. Mortg. Co., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1147, 1169 (D. Nev. 2011). That will be plaintiff’s burden at trial. 15 A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to present arguments already raised; that 16 is, a motion for reconsideration is not a mechanism for an unsuccessful party to reiterate 17 arguments previously presented. See Maraziti v. Thorp, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995); Khan v. 18 Fasano, 194 F. Supp. 2d 1134, 1136 (S.D. Cal. 2001) (“A party cannot have relief under this rule 19 merely because he or she is unhappy with the judgment.”). “In order for a party to demonstrate 20 clear error, the moving party’s arguments cannot be the same as those made earlier.” Glavor v. 21 Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 1028, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (citing Backlund v. Barnhart, 22 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985)). 23 24

25 2 This motion was filed almost eighteen months after the court ordered Gunn to file supplemental briefing on the issue of punitive damages and/or attorney’s fees. See Min. order, ECF No. 95. Instead of 26 filing supplemental briefing as directed, Gunn filed a “notice of compliance,” notifying the court she was standing by previous briefing she had already filed. See Notice, ECF No. 96. 1 As relevant here, a motion to reconsider is appropriately brought under Rule 60(b) of the 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1048 n.8 (9th Cir. 2000). 3 That rule allows for reconsideration upon a showing of: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 4 excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) an adverse party’s fraud, 5 misrepresentation, or other misconduct; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied, released, or 6 discharged judgment; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the 7 judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). A party can obtain relief under Rule 60(b) only upon an 8 adequate showing of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Maraziti, 52 F.3d at 254. 9 However, a party that seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(6) typically “must demonstrate both injury 10 and circumstances beyond [their] control” that prevented them from properly pursuing their 11 case. Cmty. Dental Servs. v. Tani, 282 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2002). 12 There is no doubt that Gunn’s motion for reconsideration is her attempt to reiterate 13 arguments previously raised and rejected. Further, Gunn’s motion fails to meet the required 14 standard under Rule 60(b), and her attempt to explain the untimely filing is disingenuous, as 15 Gunn is sneaking her argument into a request for reconsideration of my order directing the 16 parties to meet and confer regarding the JPTO for a damages trial on May 29, 2025. ECF No. 105 17 at 10. In reality, and as explained above, she is asking for reconsideration of my decision on her 18 motion to dismiss that was entered two years ago. See Montenegro v. Schrffenberg, 2019 U.S. Dist. 19 LEXIS 193263, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2019) (reconsideration motion was untimely because it 20 was filed two years after judgment was entered); Yaag v. Baker, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156013, at 21 *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 5, 2023) (same); Fields v. Brazelton, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113345, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 22 July 20, 2017) (same). 23 Accordingly, Gunn’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Likewise, Gunn’s motion for 24 judgment on the pleadings is denied. A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought 25 “after the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 1/12(c). It is clear this motion is nothing more than an attempt to delay a trial on the issues of 2|| damages. 3 Conclusion 4 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Gunn’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [ECF No. 105] and motion for reconsideration [ECF No. 106] are DENIED. 6 Dated: Jume 25, 2025 /, / 7 LL

9 Uni egptates District Judge 10 (

ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26