Matson v. United Parcel Service Inc

Filing 284

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 283 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

MARY MATSON,

11

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER

v.

13

CASE NO. C10-1528 RAJ

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Mary Matson’s Motion for

17

18 Reconsideration or Clarification (“Motion”). Dkt. # 283. Plaintiff requests that this
19 Court “reconsider portions of its Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Second Motion for
20 Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Dkt. #282) relating to whether Plaintiff’s First Fee Petition
21 (Dkt. #129) and associated briefing (Dkt. #149 & 151) are ripe for adjudication and
22 determination.” Dkt. # 283 at 1.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a

23

24 “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which
25 could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”
26 Local R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has failed to meet this standard.
27 Plaintiff does not identify any new facts or authority that the Court did not consider in its

-1

1 Order granting in part Plaintiff’s Second Fee Petition. Dkt. # 282. In its Order, the Court
2 declined to consider a single footnote reference as a sufficient request, under this Court’s
3 Local Rules or the Federal Rules, that the Court reconsider its earlier Order (Dkt. # 159)
4 finding the First Fee Petition moot. Dkt. # 282 at 17. Plaintiff’s Motion cites no
5 authority that would compel the Court to change this reasoning.
6

Plaintiffs also have not yet properly moved for the Court to rule on the First Fee

7 Petition in a manner permitted by this Court’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil
8 Procedure. Plaintiff apparently wants this Court to reconsider its earlier Order denying
9 Plaintiff’s First Fee Petition (Dkt. # 159), but it does not ask for this relief in its Motion.
10 Instead Plaintiff only requests the Court reconsider “portions” of its Second Fee Petition
11 Order (Dkt. # 282). Dkt. # 283 at 1. While the Court realizes this may seem to Plaintiff
12 to be an overly technical interpretation of her requests, the Court wishes to impress upon
13 Plaintiff that it will not reconsider its previous orders sua sponte or by implication. The
14 Court will not grant relief that is not specifically requested in accordance with the Local
15 and Federal Rules.
16

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

17
18

Dated this 13th day of August, 2018.

19

A

20
21

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER- 2