Garoutte et al v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 54

ORDER denying 52 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

RANDY AND MONICA GAROUTTE,

8
9

Plaintiffs,
v.

10

AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
11 INSURANCE COMPANY,

CASE NO. C12-1787 BHS
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendant.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on American Family Insurance Company’s
14
(“American Family”) motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 52). The Court has considered the
15
pleadings filed in support of the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby denies
16
American Family’s motion for the reasons stated herein.
17
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
18
On September 8, 2012, the Garouttes filed a complaint in King County Superior
19
Court for the State of Washington. Dkt. 1, ¶ 1.
20
On October 11, 2012, American Family removed the matter to this Court. Dkt. 1.
21
22

ORDER - 1

1

On April 9, 2013, the Garouttes filed an Amended Complaint alleging that

2 American Family did not fully compensate them under the contract of insurance and
3 asserting causes of action for violations of the Washington Administrative Code 284-304 300, et seq., the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”), RCW Chapter 19.86,
5 bad faith, and violations of the Washington Insurance Fair Conduct Act, RCW 48.30.015.
6 Dkt. 30.
7

On June 3, 2013, American Family filed a motion for partial summary judgment.

8 Dkt. 33. On June 24, 2013, the Garouttes responded. Dkt. 39. On June 28, 2013,
9 American Family replied. Dkt. 45.
10

On June 6, 2013, the Garouttes filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Dkt.

11 35. On June 24, 2013, American Family responded. Dkt. 42. On June 28, 2013, the
12 Garouttes replied and included a motion to strike material American Family submitted
13 with its response. Dkt. 48.
14

On July 23, 2013, the Court denied American Family’s motion and granted the

15 Garouttes’ motion. Dkt. 50. On August 2, 2013, American Family filed a motion for
16 reconsideration of that order. Dkt. 52.
17
18

II. DISCUSSION
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides

19 as follows:
20
21

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.

22

ORDER - 2

1 Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
2

In this case, American Family moves for reconsideration on numerous aspects of

3 the Court’s order. Dkt. 52 at 2–7. American Family disagrees with the Court’s
4 conclusion that it had no reasonable basis for denying the Garouttes’ additional living
5 expenses and the consequences that flow from that conclusion. The Court declines to
6 find that that conclusion was manifest error. Moreover, the conclusion was based on the
7 facts of this case and none of the new authorities cited by American Family change these
8 facts. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 12th day of August, 2013.

A

11
12

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3