Diederich v. Providence Health & Services et al

Filing 117

ORDER denying pltf's 116 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9

ROBERT J. DIEDERICH,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
PROVIDENCE HEALTH & SERVICES –
WASHINGTON d/b/a PROVIDENCE ST.
PETER HOSTPITAL, et al.,

CASE NO. C10-1558 RAJ
ORDER DENYING
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the court on pro se plaintiff Robert Diederich’s motion

17

for reconsideration. Dr. Diederich moves the court to reconsider its order granting

18

counsel’s motion to withdraw as attorney.

19

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a

20

“showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which

21

could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”

22

Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR (“LCR”) 7(h)(1).

23

Dr. Diederich argues that the court committed manifest error (1) in concluding that

24

both sides have lodged very public, personal attacks on each other and that forcing Mr.

25

Stockmeyer to continue to represent Dr. Diederich in the face of the personal attacks

26

from each side would result in a miscarriage of justice, and (2) in noting that “Mr.

27
28

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION– 1

1

Stockmeyer also claims that Dr. Diederich insists upon taking action with which he has a

2

fundamental disagreement.” Dkt. # 112. Dr. Diederich has failed to demonstrate that

3

the court committed manifest error. The court will not engage in a mini-trial to determine

4

which attacks are true and which are false. The fact that both sides have launched the

5

attacks, whether or not they are true, demonstrates a fundamental break down in the

6

attorney-client relationship and provides the court good cause for the withdrawal.

7

Dr. Diederich also attempts to include new facts that he readily admits were

8

available earlier. Even if the court considered these new facts, they also underscore why

9

the court has good cause to allow withdrawal.

10

Dr. Diederich also argues for relief pursuant to Rule 60(b). Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

11

60(b). However, no judgment has been entered and Mr. Stockmeyer is not a “party” for

12

purposes of Rule 60(b).

13

The court set July 22, 2013 as the new trial date to allow Dr. Diederich sufficient

14

time to engage a new attorney. Additionally, the court’s heavy docket does not allow an

15

earlier trial date.

16
17
18

For all the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Dr. Diederich’s motion for
reconsideration. Dkt. # 116.
DATED this 27th day of December, 2012.

19

A

20
21

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION– 2