Enpac, LLC v. Lucas et al

Filing 57

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 55 Motion for Reconsideration.(TG; cc mailed to defendants)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 9 ENPAC, LLC, Plaintiff, 10 11 12 CASE NO. C11-0037BHS v. CHASSIDY F. LUCAS, et al., Defendants. 13 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants CB Stormwater, LLC, and Chassidy F. Lucas’ (“Defendants”) motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 55). The Court has 17 reviewed the brief filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby 18 denies the motion for the reasons stated herein. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 19 20 On January 7, 2011, Plaintiff Enpac, LLC’s (“Enpac”) filed a complaint against 21 Defendants for declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement and for 22 violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. Dkt. 1. On June 30, 2011, 23 Defendants filed a document entitled “Counterclaim.” Dkt. 46. 24 On July 14, 2011, Enpac filed a motion to dismiss Defendants’ counterclaim. Dkt. 25 48. Defendants did not respond. On September 1, 2011, the Court granted Enpac’s 26 motion. Dkt. 53. On September 6, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration. 27 Dkt. 55. 28 ORDER - 1 II. DISCUSSION 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides as follows: Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). With regard to motions in general, the argument in support of 8 the motion shall not be made in a separate document but shall be submitted as part of the 9 motion itself. Local Rule CR 7(b)(1). 10 In this case, Defendants have failed to include any argument in support of their 11 motion. Therefore, the Court denies Defendants’ motion because Defendants have not 12 only failed to properly support their motion but also failed to meet their burden on 13 reconsideration. 14 15 16 17 III. ORDER Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 55) is DENIED. DATED this 8th day of September, 2011. 18 19 A BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER - 2

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?