2:11-cv-02112 | D. Nev. | Sep 15, 2014
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
SaSe 2:11-cV-02112-APG-CWH Document 108 Filed 09/15/14 Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
>l< * *
SOFIA A. WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:11-CV-O2ll2-APG-CWH
Plaintiff,
ORDER
V.
GOLD COAST HOTEL AND CASINO, et al.,
Defendants.
Defendant Coast Hotels and Casinos, dba Gold Coast Hotel and Casino, moves for
reconsideration of my July 12, 2013 Order, which denied in part Gold Coast’s Motion to Dismiss,
or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. Gold Coast contends 1 should reconsider the
portion of the Order which allowed Plaintiff Sofia A. Williams to proceed with her claim for
wrongful termination because l previously dismissed that claim, and because the evidence shows
Williams Was an at-will employee Who cannot state a claim for wrongful termination. As for
Williams" claims for discrimination based on gender and national origin, and retaliation, Gold
Coast contends there is no evidence it terminated Williams’ employment due to her complaints
about health hazards at the casino or due to her gender or national origin; rather, the evidence
shows Gold Coast terminated Williams due to a customer complaint Gold Coast also argues that
Williams failed to allege in her Amended Complaint any instances of a hostile work environment
during the 300-day limitations period prior to the date she filed her charge of discrimination, and
there is no evidence of any such incidents to support a hostile work environment claim. Gold
Coast therefore requests l reconsider my prior Order and dismiss or grant summary judgment on
Williams’ remaining claims.
The Court “possesses the inherent procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an
interlocutory order for cause seen by it to be sufficient” so long as the Court has jurisdiction Cily
ofL.A., Harbor Dl`v. v. Sanfa Monl'ca Baykeepe)', 254 F.3d 882" date_filed="2001-06-26" court="9th Cir." case_name="City of Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper">254 F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2001) (emphasis
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
base 2:11-cV-02112-APG-CWH Document 108 Filed 09/15/14 Page 2 of 3
and quotation omitted). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with
newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dis/‘. No. 1.], Multnomah
Cnly., Or. v. ACana’S, ]nc., 5 F.3d 1255" date_filed="1993-09-24" court="9th Cir." case_name="School District No. 1J v. Acands">5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Other “highly unusual”
circumstances may warrant reconsideration ]a’. “A motion for reconsideration is not an avenue to
re-litigate the same issues and arguments upon which the court already has ruled.” In re
Agrz'Bz`oTech, Inc., 319 B.R. 207" date_filed="2004-12-08" court="D. Nev." case_name="Schnelling v. Thomas (In Re AgriBioTech, Inc.)">319 B.R. 207, 209 (D. Nev. 2004). Additionally, a motion for reconsideration
should not “raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably
have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enlers., ]nc. v. Esmfe of Bz'shop, 229 F.3d 877" date_filed="2000-10-06" court="9th Cir." case_name="Kona Enterprises v. Estate of Bernice Pauahi Bishop">229 F.3d 877,
890 (9th Cir. 2000).
No newly discovered evidence or change in controlling law supports reconsideration, and
the prior Order is neither clearly erroneous nor manifestly unjust. Gold Coast previously could
and should have presented its evidence and arguments that it now presents on reconsideration
Thus, reconsideration is not warranted
However, it appears Gold Coast may have meritorious defenses to Williams’ claims, and 1
therefore would be inclined to extend the dispositive motion deadline. l\/lagistrate Judge Hoffman
previously indicated he would revisit the need to reopen discovery on the motion of either party if
Williams’ Amended Complaint survived dismissal. (Dkt. #92 at 4-5.) l therefore refer this matter
to the Magistrate Judge for consideration of whether to extend the discovery deadlines or set the
matter for a settlement conference, and to reset the dispositive motion deadline based on his
decision regarding extension of the discovery deadline
IT lS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant Coast Hotels and Casinos, lnc., dba Gold
Coast Hotel and Casino’s l\/Iotion to Reconsider (Dkt. #95) is hereby DENIED.
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
/ / / /
Page 2 of3
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
13
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
28
Case 2:11-cV-02112-APG-CWH Document 108 Filed 09/15/14 Page 3 of 3
lT lS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Hoffman for
consideration of whether to extend the discovery deadlines or set the matter for a settlement
conference, and to reset the dispositive motion deadline.
DATED this 15th day of September, 2014.
V//
ANDREW P. GORDON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 3 of3