Enpac, LLC v. Lucas et al
Filing
57
ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 55 Motion for Reconsideration.(TG; cc mailed to defendants)
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?