Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton

Filing 65

ORDER denying dft's 63 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

HENDRICKS & LEWIS, PLLC,

9
10
11

Plaintiff,
Case No. C12-0841RSL
v.
GEORGE CLINTON,

12

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendant.

13
14
On November 28, 2012, the Court entered an order appointing a receiver and

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

authorizing the sale of certain copyrights owned by defendant. Dkt. # 62. Almost a month
later, defendant filed a motion seeking a rehearing of the previously-decided issues and an
amendment of the order. Dkt. # 63. Motions for reconsideration must be filed within
fourteen days of the date of the order at issue, however, and, even when timely filed, are
disfavored in this district. Local Civil Rule 7(h).1 Defendant offers no explanation for his
tardy filing. The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED as untimely.

22
23
24
25
26

1

Defendant cannot avoid the procedural requirements that govern motions for
reconsideration by creatively naming the moving paper.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

Even if the Court were to consider the motion on its merits, defendant has not

2 shown “manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not
3 have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Civil
4 Rule 7(h)(1). Defendant simply disagrees with the Court’s conclusions or makes
5 arguments that should have and could have been presented while the motion was being
6 considered.
7
8

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for reconsideration is

9 DENIED.
10
11

Dated this 2nd day of January, 2013.

A

12
13

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2