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
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?