Fortin v. Abbott Industries et al
Filing
21
ORDER DENYING 17 20 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER. This file remains CLOSED. Signed by Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LTR, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)
1
FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
2
Jan 27, 2025
3
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
JEFFERY ALLEN FORTIN,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
11
v.
NO. 2:24-CV-0279-TOR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.,
AND ABBVIE, INC.,
Defendants.
12
13
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider. ECF Nos. 17
14
and 20. This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. The
15
Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the
16
reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider (ECF Nos. 17 and 20)
17
are DENIED.
18
DISCUSSION
19
A motion for reconsideration of a judgment may be reviewed under either
20
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 1
1
Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
2
1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is
3
presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial
4
decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in
5
controlling law.” Id. at 1263; United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc.,
6
555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Whether to grant a motion
7
for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v.
8
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th
9
Cir. 2003).
10
A district court does not abuse its discretion when it disregards legal
11
arguments made for the first time on a motion to alter or amend a judgment.
12
United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir.
13
2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted); Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934,
14
945 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or
15
present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised
16
earlier in the litigation.”). Evidence available to a party before it files its
17
opposition is not “newly discovered evidence” warranting reconsideration of
18
summary judgment. See Frederick S. Wyle Prof’l Corp. v. Texaco, Inc., 764 F.2d
19
604, 609 (9th Cir. 1985).
20
Plaintiff has come forward with no new evidence that justifies
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 2
1
reconsideration. Plaintiff is merely rehashing evidence that he had earlier and
2
contends the Court should reconsider. That is not the legal standard. The Court
3
additionally relies on its reasoning in its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to
4
Dismiss, ECF No. 15.
5
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
6
Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider, ECF Nos. 17 and 20, are DENIED.
7
The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order, furnish copies to
8
parties. The file remains CLOSED.
9
DATED January 27, 2025.
10
11
12
THOMAS O. RICE
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ~ 3
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?