Duggan v. United States of America et al
ORDER Denying 51 Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting the United States of America's Suggestion of Subject Matter Jurisdiction With Respect to Counts 1 and 2 of the Complaint (cc: Philip A. Duggan via first class mail). Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (PL, Case Administrator)
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
Aug 10, 2017
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
PHILIP A. DUGGAN,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ORDER GRANTING THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA’S
SUGGESTION OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION WITH
RESPECT TO COUNTS 1 AND 2
OF THE COMPLAINT
Before the Court, without oral argument, is Plaintiff Duggan’s Motion to
Reconsider Order Granting the United States of America’s Suggestion of Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction with Respect to Counts 1 and 2 of the Complaint. ECF
No. 51. Through this motion Plaintiff Duggan requests that the Court vacate its
previous Order granting the United States’ motion, ECF No. 47, and deny it instead.
ECF No. 51. The United States opposes Duggan’s motion. ECF No. 57. Having
reviewed the pleadings and the file in this matter, the Court is fully informed and
denies the instant motion.
The Court’s Scheduling Order addressed the filing of motions to reconsider.
ECF No. 39 at 10. That order directs the parties to follow the U.S. District Court for
ORDER - 1
the Western District of Washington’s Local Rule 7(h). Id. The Scheduling Order
also informs parties that motions to reconsider are disfavored and such motions
exceeding five (5) pages will not be considered. Id. Local Rule 7(h) also informs
parties that motions to reconsider are ordinarily denied “in the absence of a showing
of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority
which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable
diligence.” Local Rule 7(h)(1) of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington. Further, no responses, and by extension replies, are allowed on
motions to reconsider absent a request from the parties to file such documents. Id.
Here, although Duggan’s motion is 11 pages long, the Court has reviewed it.
The Court has also considered the United States’ response, ECF No. 57, and
Duggan’s reply, ECF No. 66. Duggan cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 as
the basis for his request. ECF No. 66 at 2. Duggan states that “he should have better
pointed out the reasons why certain letters were requests for abatement and refund
not just about tax liability” and that “[t]his could be considered mistake or excusable
neglect.” ECF No. 66 at 2.
The Court has reviewed Duggan’s filings regarding the instant motion and
they can be fairly described as rearguing the same matters the Court considered in
rendering its decision regarding counts one and two of the complaint. See ECF. Nos.
ORDER - 2
47, 51 and 66. In making its previous ruling at issue here, ECF No. 47, the Court
considered all of the parties’ filings and the entire file, as applicable to the United
States’ motion regarding this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction with respect to
counts one and two. Duggan offers no new information or legal bases for the Court
to reassess and reverse its decision. That Duggan disagrees with the Court’s findings
and ruling is not a sufficient basis for the Court to grant Duggan’s present request.
Therefore, the Court denies the instant motion.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Order Granting the United States of
America’s Suggestion of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction with
Respect to Counts 1 and 2 of the Complaint, ECF No. 51, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 10th day of August 2017.
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge
ORDER - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?