Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Davis Moreno Construction, Inc v. Frontier Steel Buildings Corp

February 1, 2011

DAVIS MORENO CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRONTIER STEEL BUILDINGS CORP.,
DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (Doc. 143)

I. INTRODUCTION.

Plaintiff Davis Moreno Construction, Inc., ("Plaintiff") proceeds with an action for damages against Defendant Frontier Steel Buildings Corp. ("Defendant").

On November 18, 2010, the court entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. 120).

More than thirty days later, on December 20, 2010, Defendant filed a Request for 16-Day Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal. (Doc. 128). The court denied Defendant's motion on January 6, 2011. (Doc. 136). Defendant filed an untimely notice of appeal on January 5, 2011. (Doc. 132).

Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying the request for extension of time on January 13, 2011. (Doc. 143).

II. LEGAL STANDARD.

A motion for reconsideration is appropriate where 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 was an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dist. No. 1J v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1038 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc). A reconsideration motion should not merely present arguments previously raised, or which could have been raised, in a previous motion. See Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985).

III. DISCUSSION.

Defendant seeks reconsideration of the court's order denying Defendant's request for an extension of time. Defendant contends it is entitled to appeal the court's grant of summary judgment under the collateral order doctrine. Defendant has not established that reconsideration is warranted.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) governs sets forth the standard applicable to motions for extensions of time to file an appeal. Rule 4(a)(5)(A) provides:

The district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if:

(i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires; and

(ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during the 30 days after the time prescribed shows excusable neglect or good cause. by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A) (emphasis added). Local Rule 144 also sets forth guidelines ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.