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.

William W. Corless Jr., D/B/A Unlimited Cage Fighting v. Zuffa

May 1, 2013

WILLIAM W. CORLESS JR., D/B/A UNLIMITED CAGE FIGHTING HAWAII,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ZUFFA, LLC, D/B/A ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP, DEFENDANT.



) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ) MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER GRANTING ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO ) DISMISS COMPLAINT OR FOR A ) NEW TRIAL

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 10, 2013, this court issued an Order Granting Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a/ Ultimate Fighting Championship's ("Defendant" or "Zuffa") Motion to Dismiss Complaint ("April 10 Order") finding that Plaintiff William W. Corless Jr., d/b/a Unlimited Cage Fighting Hawaii ("Plaintiff") failed to show the existence of "a justiciable case or controversy sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment." Doc. No. 19, April 10 Order at 1. On April 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Aside the Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint or For a New Trial. Doc. No. 21. Plaintiff brings his Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("FRCP" or "Rule") 60(b)(2) based on his contention that the court erred by misinterpreting Hawaii law and the presentation of newly discovered evidence.

The court construes the Motion as one for Reconsideration of the April 10 Order. As discussed below, the court finds that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a basis for reconsideration and therefore, the Motion is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

The relevant factual and procedural background in this case is set forth in the April 10 Order and need not be repeated here. On April 10, 2013, the Clerk of Court entered Judgment. Doc. No. 20. On April 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A motion for reconsideration filed within twenty-eight days of entry of judgment is considered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e); a later-filed motion is considered under Rule 60(b). United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 513 F.3d 1085, 1098 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Am. Ironworks & Erectors, Inc. v. N. Am. Constr. Corp., 248 F.3d 892, 898-99 (9th Cir. 2001)).

Because Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration within twenty-eight days of judgment, the court analyzes his motion pursuant to Rule 59(e).*fn1

Rule 59(e) authorizes a court to alter or amend judgment. "A district court has considerable discretion when considering a motion to amend a judgment under Rule 59(e)." Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit set forth the following grounds justifying reconsideration under Rule 59(e):

(1) if such motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such motion is necessary to present newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; (3) if such motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice: or (4) if the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration." Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted); see also Turner, 338 F.3d at 1063; Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Mantor, 417 F.3d 1060, 1063-64 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005); In re Syncor ERISA Litig., 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008).

IV. ANALYSIS

In the April 10 Order, this court found that pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") Chapter 440E, mixed martial arts ("MMA") promoters must be licensed (HRS § 440E-6) and promoters must obtain a permit to hold an MMA event (HRS § 440E-7(a)). Doc. No. 19, April 10 Order at 8. Based, in part, on these provisions, the court ruled that Plaintiff's conduct, in conjunction with his lack of a license and permit, fell "well short of the significant, concrete steps to ...


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.