Mott v. Total Lending Solutions, Inc.

D. Nevada

Mott v. Total Lending Solutions, Inc.

DecidedNovember 8, 2023

Docket2:23-cv-00151

StatusUnknown

This text of Mott v. Total Lending Solutions, Inc. (Mott v. Total Lending Solutions, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mott v. Total Lending Solutions, Inc., (D. Nev. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 RODNEY MOTT, 5 Case No. 2:23-cv-00151-RFB-NJK Plaintiff, 6 Order v. 7 [Docket Nos. 48, 50] TOTAL LENDING SOLUTIONS, INC., et 8 al., 9 Defendants. 10 On October 18, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice. Docket No. 11 46. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s duplicative motions for reconsideration of that order. 12 Docket Nos. 48, 50.1 Defendants did not file a response. See Docket. The motions are properly 13 resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motions 14 are DENIED. 15 “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Koninklijke Philips 16 Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007) (citation and internal 17 quotations omitted). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b). The Local 18 Rules provide the applicable standards in addressing whether the Court should reconsider an 19 interlocutory order, indicating that reconsideration may be appropriate if (1) there is newly 20 discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or response was filed, (2) the 21 Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an 22 intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). “A movant must not repeat arguments 23 already presented unless (and only to the extent) necessary to explain controlling, intervening law 24 or to argue new facts.” Local 59-1(b). 25 26 27 1 The Court construes pro se filings liberally. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 28 (9th Cir. 2013). ] Plaintiff has not established grounds for reconsideration. Plaintiff does not address the relevant legal standards for reconsideration and, instead, repeats arguments already presented in 3] his initial motion for judicial notice. See Docket Nos. 48, 50. 4 Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions for reconsideration are DENIED. Docket Nos. 48, 50. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: November 8, 2023 Go 7 ce a ms Nancy J. Kopp 8 United States Magistrate Judge

10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 RODNEY MOTT, 5 Case No. 2:23-cv-00151-RFB-NJK Plaintiff, 6 Order v. 7 [Docket Nos. 48, 50] TOTAL LENDING SOLUTIONS, INC., et 8 al., 9 Defendants. 10 On October 18, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice. Docket No. 11 46. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s duplicative motions for reconsideration of that order. 12 Docket Nos. 48, 50.1 Defendants did not file a response. See Docket. The motions are properly 13 resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motions 14 are DENIED. 15 “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly.” Koninklijke Philips 16 Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 245 F.R.D. 470, 472 (D. Nev. 2007) (citation and internal 17 quotations omitted). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Rule 59-1(b). The Local 18 Rules provide the applicable standards in addressing whether the Court should reconsider an 19 interlocutory order, indicating that reconsideration may be appropriate if (1) there is newly 20 discovered evidence that was not available when the original motion or response was filed, (2) the 21 Court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) there is an 22 intervening change in controlling law. Local Rule 59-1(a). “A movant must not repeat arguments 23 already presented unless (and only to the extent) necessary to explain controlling, intervening law 24 or to argue new facts.” Local 59-1(b). 25 26 27 1 The Court construes pro se filings liberally. Blaisdell v. Frappiea, 729 F.3d 1237, 1241 28 (9th Cir. 2013). ] Plaintiff has not established grounds for reconsideration. Plaintiff does not address the relevant legal standards for reconsideration and, instead, repeats arguments already presented in 3] his initial motion for judicial notice. See Docket Nos. 48, 50. 4 Accordingly, Plaintiffs motions for reconsideration are DENIED. Docket Nos. 48, 50. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: November 8, 2023 Go 7 ce a ms Nancy J. Kopp 8 United States Magistrate Judge

10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mott v. Total Lending Solutions, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mott-v-total-lending-solutions-inc-nvd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack