Oregon Mutual Insurance Company v. Seattle Collision Center Inc et al

Filing 77

ORDER denying 71 Third-Party Defendants' Motion for partial Reconsideration, by Judge James L. Robart.(MD)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE OREGON MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SEATTLE COLLISION CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants. _______________________________ SEATTLE COLLISION CENTER, INC., et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Third-Party Defendants. CASE NO. C08-1670JLR ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

ORDER - 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

This matter comes before the court on Third-Party Defendants' motion for partial reconsideration (Dkt. # 71). The court has considered both the motion and Third-Party Plaintiffs' response (Dkt. # 75), and deems oral argument unnecessary. For the following reasons, the court DENIES the motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 71). Pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the prior ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the attention of the court earlier, through reasonable diligence. Here, Third-Party Defendants have made neither showing. Even accepting Third-Party Defendants' arguments regarding St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Onvia, Inc., 196 P.3d 664 (Wash. 2008), the court is not persuaded that a different result would be warranted. As noted in the court's September 18, 2009 order, Third-Party Defendants, in their motion for summary judgment, simply did not present substantive argument, briefing, or authority with respect to Third-Party Plaintiffs' bad faith and CPA delay claims, negligence claim, and coverage by estoppel claim. As a consequence, Third-Party Defendants did not carry their initial burden with respect to these claims. The court therefore denies the motion for reconsideration. In response to the issues raised by Third-Party Defendants, the court issues an amended version of its September 18, 2009 order (Dkt. # 68). (See Am. Order (Dkt. # 76) at 24, 26.)

ORDER - 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Dated this 28th day of October, 2009.

JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge

A

ORDER - 3