Tocci v. CoreCivic, Inc.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided May 24, 2023·No. 2:21-cv-01302·Unknown

Opinion

3 SANDRA TOCCI, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-01302-GMN-NJK 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 CORECIVIC, INC., et al. ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is Defendant Wyatt Peterson’s (“Defendant Peterson’s”) 11 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order granting, among other things, Plaintiff Sandra 12 Tocci’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion to Dismiss Defendant Peterson, (ECF No. 81). Also pending 13 before the Court is Defendant Peterson’s Motion for Status on the Motion for Reconsideration, 14 (ECF No. 82). On August 15, 2022, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant 15 Peterson from the lawsuit. Defendant Peterson did not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss 16 but requested that this Court dismiss Defendant Peterson with prejudice. (See Order 7:1-3). 17 The Court dismissed Defendant Peterson without prejudice and noted in the Order that 18 Defendant Peterson “d[id] not offer further argument or analysis to show why . . . the Court 19 should dismiss him with prejudice.” (Id. 7:18-21). 20 Defendant Peterson’s Motion for Reconsideration requests “reconsideration or 21 alteration” of the Court’s Order “pursuant to and in compliance with Rule 59 and Rule 60 of the 22 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the grounds that there is a definite legal prejudice to 23 Defendant by being dismissed without prejudice, as opposed to with prejudice.” (Id.). 24 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 59(e) provides that any motion to alter 25 or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment. The Ninth 1 Circuit has held that a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration should not be granted “absent 2 highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 3 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 4 Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) 5 (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Under Rule 6 60(b), a court may, upon motion and just terms, “relieve a party . . . from a final judgment,” on 7 the ground that the “judgment is void[.]” Fed R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). A judgment is “void only if 8 the court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or if 9 the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law.” In re Ctr. Wholesale, Inc., 10 759 F.2d 1440, 1448 (9th Cir. 1985). Additionally, under Rule 60(b), a court may relieve a 11 party from a final judgment, order, or proceeding only in the following circumstances: (1) 12 mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; 13 (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied; or (6) any other reason justifying 14 relief from the judgment. Stewart v. Dupnik, 243 F.3d 549, 549 (9th Cir. 2000). 15 The Court finds that Defendant Peterson’s Motion for Reconsideration fails to provide 16 the Court with new facts, intervening case law, or evidence that the Court committed clear 17 error. Although Defendant Peterson contends “a dismissal without prejudice is prejudicial” to 18 Defendant because it may result in Defendant Peterson’s prosecution for the allegations made 19 against him by Plaintiff, the Court finds Defendant Peterson’s argument unpersuasive.

20 Specifically, the connection from this Court dismissing Defendant Peterson without prejudice 21 to his criminal prosecution based on the allegations made by Plaintiff is too attenuated to justify 22 altering or amending the Court’s previous Order. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Peterson’s Motion for 2 Reconsideration is DENIED. The Court additionally DISMISSES AS MOOT Defendant 3 Peterson’s Motion for Status on the Motion for Reconsideration. 4 DATED this _2__4__ day of May, 2023. 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

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

Tocci v. CoreCivic, Inc., (D. Nev. 2023).

Tocci v. CoreCivic, Inc. (Tocci v. CoreCivic, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold
179 F.3d 656 (Ninth Circuit, 1999)