Griffin v. The Boeing Company

Filing 111

ORDER denying plaintiff's 110 Second Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

ELLEN GRIFFIN,

11
12
13

CASE NO. 13-38 RAJ
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
THE BOEING COMPANY,

14

Defendant.

15
16

On June 25, 2015, this Court entered an order granting summary judgment in

17
18

favor of Defendant, the Boeing Company (“Boeing”). Dkt. ## 91, 92. Plaintiff appealed

19 this order on July 15, 2015. Dkt. # 95. Two days after filing her notice of appeal, on
20 July 18, 2015, she filed a motion for reconsideration of the underlying order dismissing
21

her case. Dkt. # 96. She then filed an amended motion for reconsideration on July 21,

22
23

2015. Dkt. ## 98, 101. The Court denied her motion for reconsideration for several

24 reasons: 1) Plaintiff had already filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, thereby divesting
25 this Court of jurisdiction, 2) Plaintiff’s motion was filed after the deadline, and 3) upon
26
27
ORDER - 1

1

consideration of the merits the Court found that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden. Dkt.

2 # 104.
3
4

On June 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration. Dkt. # 110.
If her initial motion for reconsideration and amended motion for reconsideration were

5
6

procedurally defunct, then, even more so, is this one. To reiterate its last Order, the Court

7 notes that Plaintiff filed this current motion after having appealed to the Ninth Circuit,
8 and this motion was filed nearly a year after the Court’s Order granting Boeing’s motion
9
for summary judgment. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(2) (“The motion shall be
10
filed within fourteen days after the order to which it relates is filed.”).
11
However, even if this Court were to once more excuse the procedural defects, the

12

13 Court concludes that the motion for reconsideration is without merit. “Motions for
14

reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The court will ordinarily deny such motions

15
16

in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts

17 or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with
18 reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). Plaintiff’s instant motion for reconsideration
19

neither demonstrates manifest legal error, nor does it direct the Court to new facts or legal

20
21

authority that she could not have presented previously in opposition to Boeing’s motion.

22 There is nothing in Plaintiff’s instant motion that persuades the court its prior decision
23 was incorrect. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 110) is
24

DENIED.

25
26

//

27 //
ORDER - 2

1

Dated this 13th day of February, 2017.

A

2
3

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER - 3