Marlena Barton v. Sunbeam Products, Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00156
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Marlena Barton, Case No. 2:25-cv-00156-CDS-MDC Plaintiff, 4 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ECF NO. 57) 5 Sunbeam Products, Inc., et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 57) of the Court’s 9 02/13/2026 Order (ECF No. 56) granting defendant Walmart Inc’s (“Walmart”) Motion to Extend the 10 dispositive motion deadline (“Extend Motion”) (ECF No. 50). Pursuant to LR 59-1(a), Plaintiff requests 11 for the Court to vacate its 02/13/2026 Order (ECF No. 56) nunc pro tunc and strike defendant Walmart’s 12 Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 55). ECF No. 57. Defendants oppose the Motion. ECF No. 62. 13 The Court DENIES the Motion for the reasons below. 14 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LR 59-1(b). A motion for reconsideration “should 15 not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma 16 GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 17 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 18 “Reconsideration also may be appropriate if (1) there is newly discovered evidence that was not 19 available when the original motion or response was filed, (2) the court committed clear error or the 20 initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” LR 59- 21 1(a). 22 The Court granted Walmart’s Extend Motion for cause shown and pursuant to LR 7-2(d) because 23 plaintiff did not oppose the motion. See 02/13/2026 Order (ECF No. 56). LR 7-2(d) provides in relevant 24 part that “failure to file points and authorities in response to a motion… constitutes consent to the 25 granting of the motion.” Id. 1 Plaintiff fails to establish any grounds for reconsideration under LR 59-1(a). She does not show 2 or argue that: (1) there is newly discovered evidence; (2) the Court committed clear error; or (3) there 3 was an intervening change in controlling law. Plaintiff seems to suggest that the result of the 02/13/2026 4 Order was unjust because defendants obtained the advantage of filing their summary judgment two 5 weeks after plaintiff filed hers. See ECF No. 57. Plaintiff, however, fails to expressly assert manifest 6 injustice and state her arguments with particularity and supporting authorities, as required by LR 59- 7 1(a). See also U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Banc de Binary, Ltd., No. 2:13-CV-992- 8 MMD-VCF, 2015 WL 556441, at *4 (D. Nev. February 11, 2015) (“Given our adversary system of 9 litigation, it is not the role of this court to research and construct the legal arguments open to parties, 10 especially when they are represented by counsel.”) (citing Doherty v. City of Chicago, 75 F.3d 318, 324 11 (7th Cir.1996)). 12 Instead, plaintiff argues that she did not oppose Walmart’s Extend Motion because she believed 13 it was mooted when Walmart filed a joinder (ECF No. 54) to the Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 14 No. 53) by defendants Newell Brands Distribution LLC, Newell Brands Inc., and Sunbeam Products, 15 Inc. ECF No. 57. Plaintiff, however, did not raise such arguments in response to Walmart’s motion for 16 extension and failure to do so are not grounds for reconsideration. See Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 17 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted) (a motion for reconsideration “may not be used to raise 18 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in 19 the litigation.”). Moreover, plaintiff provides no authorities to support: (i) that Walmart’s motion was 20 mooted1; or (ii) her belief that the motion was mooted eliminated her obligation to respond to the motion 21 or exempted her from the consequences of LR 7-2(d); and (iii) that either of these circumstances are 22 23

24 1 Joining another’s motion does not necessarily preclude a party from filing its own separate and independent motion. See e.g., Cooksie v. Pac., Gas & Elec. Co., No. 2:12-CV-1445 LKK AC, 2013 WL 25 3872829, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2013) (“Defendant Pacific, Gas and Electric Company…. has filed both a joinder to IBEW's motion… and a separate, similar motion….”). 1 || grounds for reconsideration. Again, reconsideration motions, like all other motions, must be supported 2 || by legal authorities. See LR 7-2(d), LR 59-1(a). 3 ACCORDINGLY, 4 IT IS ORDERED that: plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 57) is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 6 Dated: April 27, 2026. fh x vo

United “Te é Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25