Motion to Reconsider/Vacate Summary Judgment in Nevada

Background

“[A] district court should only grant a motion for reconsideration where ‘new issues of fact or law are raised supporting a ruling contrary to the ruling already reached.’” (Lakeshore House Ltd. v. Bank of W., No. 78062, at *12 [Nev. Nov. 3, 2020] citing Moore v. City of Las Vegas (1976) 92 Nev. 402, 405.)

Importantly, “NRCP 59(e) and NRAP 4(a)(4)(C) echo Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), and [a court] may consult federal law in interpreting them.” (AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington (2010) 245 P.3d 1190, 4 citing Coury v. Robison. (1999) 115 Nev. 84, 91 n. 4.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A motion to alter or amend the judgment [must] be filed no later than 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the judgment.” (AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington (2010) 245 P.3d 1190, 4 citing NRCP 59(e).)

“It must also satisfy NRCP 7(b) and be ‘in writing, ... state with particularity [its] grounds [and] set forth the relief or order sought.’” (AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington (2010) 245 P.3d 1190, 4 citing United Pac. Ins. Co. v. St. Denis (1965) 81 Nev. 103, 106-07 [citing NRCP 7(b) and NRCP 59(e)]; see Elustra v. Mineo (2010) 595 F.3d 699, 707-08 [7th Cir.] [a single-sentence motion meeting Fed.R.Civ.P. 7's requirements and asking to vacate a judgment qualified as tolling under the federal counterparts to NRCP 59 and NRAP 4(a)(4)(C)].)

Newly Discoveryed Evidence as Basis for Reconsideration

“[R]egarding a motion to reconsider, ‘[e]vidence is not newly discovered if it was in the party's possession at the time of summary judgment or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence.’” (Lakeshore House Ltd. v. Bank of W., No. 78062, at *13 [Nev. Nov. 3, 2020] citing Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co. (1994) 26 F.3d 885, 892 n.6 [9th Cir.].)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The court of appeals review[s] summary judgment de novo.” (Powell v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins., 127 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 14, 55159 (2011), 252 P.3d 668, 6-7 [Nev. 2011] citing Wood v. Safeway, Inc. (2005) 121 Nev. 724, 729.) “A court may grant summary judgment if the evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact.” (Id.) “When considering a motion for summary judgment, the court must view the evidence and any reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” (Id.)

The Court’s Decision

“[S]o long as a post-judgment motion for reconsideration is in writing, timely filed, states its grounds with particularity, and ‘request[s] a substantive alteration of the judgment, not merely the correction of a clerical error, or relief of a type wholly collateral to the judgment,’ there is no reason to deny it NRCP 59(e) status, with tolling effect under NRAP 4(a)(4)(C).” (AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 245 P.3d 1190, 9 (Nev. 2010) quoting 11 C. Wright, A. Miller M. Kane, § 2810.1, at 121.)

Motion to Reconsideration on Appeal

“In Arnold v. Kip (2007) 123 Nev. 410, [the Nevada Supreme] court established a two-part test to determine whether a motion for reconsideration preserves arguments for appeal.” (Cohen v. Padda, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 18, 4-5 [Nev. 2022] citing id.)

“First, the order denying reconsideration must have been entered before the notice of appeal was filed, such that the reconsideration motion and order are part of the record on appeal.” (Cohen, 138 Nev. Adv. Op. 18, 4-5 [Nev. 2022] citing id. at 416-17.)

“Second, the district court must have entertained the motion on its merits.” (Id. at 417.)