Robinson v. Circa Resorts LLC

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 9, 2025
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01646
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MARTRAIL ROBINSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-01646-ART-BNW 4 Plaintiff, ORDER Re: Motions to Reconsider 5 v. and Reopen Case (ECF Nos. 90, 94, 97) 6 CIRCA RESORTS, LLC; BRENDAN CASTILLIO, et al, 7 Defendants. 8 9 Pro se Plaintiff Martrail Robinson sued Circa Resorts, LLC, (“Circa”), 10 Brendan Castillio—an employee of Circa, and several Doe Defendants under the 11 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and several state laws. The Court 12 dismissed Robinson’s claims against Castillo and Doe Defendants under Federal 13 Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), entered summary judgment in favor of Circa on 14 Robinson’s ADA claim, and dismissed Robinson’s state claims without prejudice 15 for lack of jurisdiction. 16 Following this order, Robinson moved “to overturn and dismiss all 17 motions” and schedule a status conference with the Court and Defendants to 18 review motions filed since July 2024 because Robinson had not been receiving 19 case-related mail since then. (ECF No. 90) He then moved to overturn and 20 dismiss the Court’s last order, (ECF No. 94), and to reopen the case based on a 21 scheduled appointment with a Department of Veterans Affairs lawyer (ECF No. 22 97). 23 The Court construes Robinson’s filings as a motion to reconsider its 24 previous entry of judgment. A motion for reconsideration after final judgment 25 may be brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Taylor v. Knapp, 26 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 27 1388 (9th Cir. 1985)). “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is 28 presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is 1 |} an intervening change in the controlling law.” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 2 || 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th 3 || Cir. 1999) (en banc). “[A] Rule 59(e) motion is an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be 4 || used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” 5 || Id. (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 6 || A Rule 59(e) motion must be filed no more than 28 days after the entry of the 7 || judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 8 Robinson’s filings make no mention of newly discovered evidence, clear 9 || error in the Court’s previous order, or an intervening change in controlling law. 10 || (See ECF Nos. 90, 94, 97.) Accordingly, the Court lacks a basis to reconsider its 11 || final judgment on Robinson’s ADA claim, dismissal of Robinson’s state law 12 || claims, and denial of Robinson’s request for a status conference, and it will not 13 || disturb its previous order. 14 The Court denies Robinson’s motions (ECF Nos. 90, 94, 97). 15 16 DATED THIS 9th day of July 2025. 17 Ap posed dn 18 ANNE R. TRAUM 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28