Knickerbocker et al v. City of Colville et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 65 Motion for Reconsideration Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (JW, Operations Clk)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7
8

TIFFANY KNICKERBOCKER, a
single person; DARCY BODY, a
single person,
Plaintiffs,

9

NO: 2:15-CV-19-RMP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
10
11

CITY OF COLVILLE, a municipal
sub-division of the State of
Washington, and REX NEWPORT,

12
Defendants.
13
14

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s

15

Order Denying Summary Judgment, ECF No. 65. Defendants rely on Fed. R. Civ.

16

P. 54(b), and 60(b)(6) to argue that the court can reconsider its previous denial of

17

their motion for summary judgment. Defendants are represented by Jerry Moberg.

18

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffry Finer and Richard Wall. The Court has

19

reviewed the file and pleadings in this case and is fully informed.

20
21
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 1

1
2

LAW
A court may grant a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P 54(b)

3

and revise a previous order. However, whether to grant a motion for

4

reconsideration is in the Court’s discretion. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes

5

and Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

6

Granting a motion for reconsideration is not appropriate when the movant

7

previously raised all of the arguments that are in the motion for reconsideration.

8

Taylor v Knapp, 871 F.2d 803, 805 (9th Cir. 1989).

9
10

DISCUSSION
In Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, they raise the same arguments

11

that they previously raised in their initial motion for summary judgment: basically,

12

that there is no liability for “failure to train” about something that is well known.

13

As Plaintiffs point out, Defendants’ rearguing the same authority and facts that

14

they previously raised is not a basis for the Court to grant reconsideration of its

15

prior order. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs.

16

Although Plaintiffs present additional argument and authority to support

17

their opposition to Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, the Court finds that it

18

need not address in detail each argument in this Order. Rather, the Court finds that

19

Defendants have failed to raise any facts or authority that were not previously

20

raised in their original motion for summary judgment. See Taylor at 805.

21

Therefore, there is no basis for the Court to reconsider its prior decision.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2

1

IT IS SO ORDERED: Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No.

2

65, is DENIED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and

3

provide copies to counsel.

4
5
6

DATED this 6th day of October, 2016.
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 3