Garcia et al v. Stemilt Ag Services LLC

Filing 241

ORDER DENYING 236 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. (MRJ, Case Administrator)

Case 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ

ECF No. 241

1

Jan 31, 2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

5
6
7
8
9

GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA,
JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA,
JOSE RODRIGUEZ LLERENAS,
FRANCISCO MUÑOZ MEDRANO,
SANDRO VARGAS LEVYA,
ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ MONROY,
and VICTOR FRANCISCO
PADILLA PLASCENCIA, as
individuals and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons,

12
13

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

No. 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs,

10
11

PageID.6135 Page 1 of 3

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

2

4

filed 01/31/22

v.
STEMILT AG SERVICES LLC,
Defendant.

14

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this

15

Court’s Order Granting Motion to Intervene, ECF No. 236. Defendant submits that

16

the Court erred in permitting Jose Rodriguez Llerenas and Francisco Muñoz

17

Medrano to intervene as class representatives to assert FLCA claims on behalf of

18

persons who worked under the August 2017 Clearance Order. Defendant’s

19

argument is premised on the contention that FLCA claims arising from the August

20

2017 Clearance Order are time-barred. Having already decided that these FLCA

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION – 1

Case 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ

ECF No. 241

filed 01/31/22

PageID.6136 Page 2 of 3

1

claims relate back to the draft complaint, the Court ordered the parties to submit

2

supplemental briefing on whether these claims are timely under American Pipe &

3

Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). Having reviewed the submitted briefing,

4

the Court denies Defendant’s motion for partial reconsideration.

5

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

6

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc.

7

v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “A district court may

8

properly reconsider its decision if it (1) is presented with newly discovered

9

evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or

10

(3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch.

11

Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013). Courts generally disfavor motions for

12

reconsideration, and they may not be used to present new arguments or evidence

13

that could have been raised earlier. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442

14

(9th Cir. 1991).

15

The Court cannot determine that it has committed clear error or that its initial

16

decision was manifestly unjust. As will be explained more thoroughly in the Court’s

17

order on Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ pending Second Motion for Class Certification, ECF

18

No. 208, the Court finds that FLCA claims arising from the August 2017 Clearance

19

Order are timely under American Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974).

20

//

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION – 2

Case 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ

1

filed 01/31/22

PageID.6137 Page 3 of 3

//

2

ECF No. 241

//

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

4

1.

5
6
7
8
9
10

Defendant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this Court’s Order
Granting Motion to Intervene, ECF No. 236, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and
provide copies to all counsel.
DATED this 31st day of January 2022.
________________________
SALVADOR MENDOZA, JR.
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION – 3