Ilyia v. El Khoury et al

Filing 121

ORDER denying pltf's 117 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

ELIAS ILYIA,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,

Case No. C11-1593RSL

v.

12

MAROUN EL KHOURY and SOPHIE
JALBERT EL KHOURY,

13

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

14
15

By order entered on December 10, 2012, the Court granted defendant

16

Sophie El Khoury’s motion to dismiss for lack of service. Plaintiff has filed a timely

17

motion for reconsideration. Dkt. # 117 Such motions are disfavored in this district,

18

however, and the moving party bears the burden of showing “manifest error in the prior

19

ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the

20

Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Civil Rule 7(h). Plaintiff has

21

not met his burden.

22

In support of her motion to dismiss, Ms. El Khoury provided a detailed

23

description of her activities on June 30, 2012, and the declarations of three other people

24

who were with her during the relevant period. In response, plaintiff offered only a single,

25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

-1-

1

conclusory declaration that he now seeks to supplement.1 Plaintiff has not shown that the

2

new facts or evidence could not have been brought to the Court’s attention in a timely

3

manner.

4
5
6

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.

7
8

Dated this 7th day of January, 2013.

9

A
Robert S. Lasnik

10

United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1

22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff also seeks to amend the proof of service filed with the Court on July 2,
2012, to append the signature of one of the police officers present during the Lebanon
proceedings. Plaintiff’s theory seems to be that the police officers were aware that
counsel intended to serve Ms. El Khoury and/or may have witnessed the service and
should therefore “be liberally construed as though they had handed her the papers
themselves.” Motion (Dkt. # 117) at 6. Amending the proof of service to attribute
service to an individual who did not actually perform it would not benefit plaintiff in any
way and, in fact, would likely be sanctionable.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

-2-