Red Lion Hotels Franchising Inc v. Century-Omaha Land LLC et al

Filing 41

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LESLIES MOTION TO RECONSIDER 40 . Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

RED LION HOTELS
FRANCHISING, INC.,

NO: 2:18-CV-0131-TOR

8
Plaintiff,
9
v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
LESLIE’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER

10
11
12

CENTURY-OMAHA LAND, LLC.,
and EDWIN W. LESLIE,
Defendants.

13
14

BEFORE THE COURT is Defendant Edwin W. Leslie’s Motion to

15

Reconsider (ECF No. 40). The Motion was submitted for consideration without a

16

request for oral argument. The Court has reviewed the briefing, the record, and

17

files herein, and is fully informed.

18

A motion for reconsideration of a judgment may be reviewed under either

19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or

20

Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LESLIE’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 1

1

1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is

2

presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial

3

decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

4

controlling law.” Id. at 1263; United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc.,

5

555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). “There may also be other, highly unusual,

6

circumstances warranting reconsideration.” School Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

7

Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion

8

of the court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima

9

Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). A district court does not

10

abuse its discretion when it disregards legal arguments made for the first time on a

11

motion to alter or amend a judgment. United Nat. Ins. Co., 555 F.3d at 780

12

(quotation marks and citations omitted); Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945

13

(9th Cir. 2003) (“A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or

14

present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised

15

earlier in the litigation.”). Reconsideration is also properly denied when the

16

movant “present[s] no arguments . . . that had not already been raised” previously.

17

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

18
19

Here, Defendant simply repeats his previous argument that the “Arbitrator
failed to cite that his decision was made and decided in accordance with the

20

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LESLIE’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 2

1

Washington Fair Franchising Act.” Compare ECF No. 36 at 11 with ECF No. 40

2

at 10.

3

The Motion for Reconsideration is therefore denied. Taylor v. Knapp, 871

4

F.2d at 805 (reconsideration is properly denied when the movant “present[s] no

5

arguments . . . that had not already been raised” previously).

6

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

7
8
9
10
11

Defendant Edwin W. Leslie’s Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 40) is
DENIED.
The District Court Executive is hereby directed to enter this Order, furnish
copies to the parties. The file is to remain closed.
DATED August 27, 2019.

12
13

THOMAS O. RICE
Chief United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT LESLIE’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 3