Barrajas v. Travelers Home and Marine Insurance Company

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Plaintiffs Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendants Partial Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 13 is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 JERUSALEN BARRAJAS, a single man, Plaintiff, 9 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 10 11 CASE NO.: 2:16-CV-0432-TOR TRAVELERS HOME AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, doing business in Grant County, Defendant. 13 14 15 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order 16 Granting Defendant’s Rule 12 Partial Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 13. This 17 matter was set for consideration without oral argument for April 10, 2017. The 18 Court has reviewed the briefing and record herein, and is fully informed. 19 // 20 // ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 1 1 BACKGROUND On March 1, 2017, the Court entered an Order Granting Defendant’s Partial 2 3 Motion to Dismiss related to Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant violated the 4 Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”) (RCW 48.30.015) and the 5 Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”) (RCW 49.60 et seq.). ECF 6 Nos. 12, 1-2 at ¶¶ 3.7, 3.9-3.10. Because Plaintiff did not substantially comply with 7 IFCA’s statutory notice requirement, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s IFCA claim 8 without prejudice.1 Id. at 8. The Court also dismissed Plaintiff’s WLAD claim 9 without prejudice because Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts. Id. at 10-11. 10 Nevertheless, the Court granted Plaintiff “leave to file an amended 11 complaint (with Plaintiff’s name spelled correctly) within thirty (30) days.” ECF 12 No. 12 at 13. Plaintiff timely filed an Amended Complaint on March 17, 2017, 13 and again on March 28, 2017. ECF Nos. 16, 18 (continuing to misspell Plaintiff’s 14 name). Plaintiff also filed a Notice of Washington State Constitutional Question 15 Related to RCW 48.30.015 on March 8, 2017, see ECF No. 14, which the Court 16 17 1 The Court declined to consider Plaintiff’s constitutional arguments 18 challenging the IFCA notice requirement (RCW 48.30.015(8)) because Plaintiff 19 failed to observe the requirements of making a constitutional challenge. ECF No. 20 12 at 6-7. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2 1 certified to the Washington Attorney General for consideration on March 9, 2017, 2 see ECF No. 15. 3 4 5 6 Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 12. DISCUSSION “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 7 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 8 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 9 controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 10 1999) (citation omitted). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to 11 the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and 12 Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 The Court finds reconsideration is not warranted. Although Plaintiff has 14 finally complied with the requirements of making a constitutional challenge, 15 Plaintiff has failed to show anything more than a disagreement with the Court’s 16 decision. ECF No. 13 at 4. Moreover, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any new 17 evidence, an intervening change in law, or that the Court committed clear error to 18 warrant reconsideration. 389 Orange St. Partners, 179 F.3d at 665. Indeed, 19 20 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 3 1 Plaintiff merely “ask[s] the court to reconsider” its decision and to certify the IFCA 2 constitutional question to the Washington State Supreme Court.2 Id. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any reason that justifies reconsideration. 3 4 See Navajo Nation, 331 F.3d at 1046. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is denied 5 and the Court’s previous order stands. 6 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant’s 8 Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 13) is DENIED. 9 10 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to the parties. 11 DATED: April 27, 2017. 12 13 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 2 17 Washington Supreme Court the question of whether IFCA’s statutory notice 18 requirement is unconstitutional. See Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 390– 19 91 (1974) (“Resort to certification is not mandatory where state law is unclear on a 20 particular issue.”); RCW 2.60.020 (stating that federal courts may elect to certify). The Court—in exercising its unfettered discretion—declines to certify to the ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 4

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?