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)

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