United States of America v. City of Seattle

Filing 479

ORDER denying Interested Party Isabelle Kerner's 475 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SWT) (cc: Kerner via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13

ORDER DENYING
NON-PARTY’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

CITY OF SEATTLE,
Defendant.

14
15

CASE NO. C12-1282JLR

Before the court is non-party Isabelle Kerner’s motion for reconsideration of the

16

court’s order denying her motion to intervene. (MFR (Dkt. # 475); see also 7/19/18

17

Order (Dkt. # 465).) The court has considered Ms. Kerner’s motion, the relevant portions

18

of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court DENIES Ms.

19

Kerner’s motion.

20

First, Ms. Kerner’s motion is untimely. Local Rule LCR 7(h)(2) requires that a

21

motion for reconsideration “shall be filed within fourteen days after the order to which it

22

relates is filed.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(2). The court filed its order denying

ORDER - 1

1

Ms. Kerner’s motion to intervene on July 19, 2018. (See generally 7/19/18 Order.) Ms.

2

Kerner did not move for reconsideration until August 6, 2018, which is more than

3

fourteen days after the court’s July 19, 2018, order. (See generally MFR.) Ms. Kerner’s

4

motion is, therefore, untimely, and the court denies it on this ground.

5

In addition, a motion for reconsideration is disfavored, and the court will

6

ordinarily deny it unless there is a showing of (1) manifest error in the prior ruling, or (2)

7

new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the court’s attention

8

earlier with reasonable diligence. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). Ms. Kerner

9

makes neither showing. Thus, even if her motion were timely, the court would

10
11

nevertheless deny it on substantive grounds.
Specifically, Ms. Kerner argues that she is entitled to intervene as of right under

12

28 U.S.C. § 2403(a). (MFR at 1-2.) That statute, however, concerns the right of the

13

United States to intervene in any action “wherein the constitutionality of any Act of

14

Congress affecting public interest is drawn into question.” 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a). The

15

statute does not provide a basis for an individual citizen, such as Ms. Kerner, to intervene

16

either permissively or as of right in any action. See id.

17

In addition, Ms. Kerner argues that the court should grant her permissive

18

intervention because she contends that the Seattle Police Department (“SPD”) “continues

19

to engage in a pattern or practice that violates the Due Process Clause and the Equal

20

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” (MFR at 3.) This argument, however,

21

fails to address the requirements for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1). See

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). Specifically, Ms. Kerner fails to demonstrate that she has been

ORDER - 2

1

“given a conditional right to intervene by federal statute,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(A),

2

or that she “has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of

3

law or fact,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B).

4

Finally, Ms. Kerner details a personal grievance she has against SPD and some of

5

its officers based on events allegedly occurring on October 8, 2017. (See Mem. (Dkt.

6

# 475-1) at 5-13.) Even assuming Ms. Kerner’s allegations are true, her assertions do not

7

provide a basis for either intervention as of right or permissive intervention under Rule

8

24. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.

9

In sum, Ms. Kerner’s motion for reconsideration is untimely. See Local Rules

10

W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(2). In addition, Ms. Kerner has made neither of the substantive

11

showings required under Local Rule LCR 7(h)(1)—either manifest error in the prior

12

ruling, or new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the court’s

13

attention earlier with reasonable diligence. See id., LCR 7(h)(1). For those reasons, the

14

court DENIES Ms. Kerner’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 475).

15

Dated this 15th day of August, 2018.

16
17

A

18

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3