By Jerry Carter. A Peppermill Casino employee was caught on the premises of Grand Sierra Resort making unauthorized entry into slot machines. Grand Sierra Resort sued the Peppermill Casino and the employee, and sought a preliminary injunction against both. The court granted a preliminary injunction against the employee, but denied the requested preliminary injunction against the Peppermill Casino. Later in the case, the Peppermill Casino appeared to shift its position as to whether the employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment for the Peppermill Casino when he was caught. Based on the apparent shift in position, the Grand Sierra Resort renewed its motion for a preliminary injunction against the Peppermill Casino. Nevertheless, the Business Court Judge determined that the apparent shift in position did not justify reconsideration of its earlier decision. In its ruling, the Court stated:

In this case, Peppermill initially denied that Tors was working within the scope of its employment when he was captured by GSR security breaching its slot machines. That position has now changed. That Tors was an employee of Peppermill should come to no surprise to GSR; he admitted it during his initial interview with Gaming Control agents while on GSR’s premises July 12, 2013.

During the course of litigation the abandonment of defenses, discovery of new facts and changes in parties’ position can be expected. These circumstance do not necessarily provide a basis for reconsideration of a previous court order. A decision may be reconsidered if substantially different evidence is subsequently introduced to cause a court to reconsider its previous ruling. This fact does not rise to that standard.