Lynott et al v. Luckovich et al

Filing 330

ORDER RENOTING plaintiffs' 326 MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. 315 ) : Noting Date 2/9/2018; motion for reconsideration denied as to Mr. Reiche. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9

ESTATE OF FRANK B. LYNOTT, by and
through BRUCE R. MOEN, personal
representative,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

No. C14-0503RSL

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

v.
LAURIE A. LUCKOVICH, et al.,

13

Defendants.
14
15
16

On January 22, 2018, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against defendants Daryl

17

Trevor Reiche and Debra K. Campbell. Dkt. # 315. Plaintiff timely filed a motion for

18

reconsideration, arguing that new evidence which could not be presented earlier to the Court

19

justifies reversal.

20
21
22
23

Plaintiff has not shown that the Declaration of Eldon Faske could not have been brought
to the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. LCR 7(h)(1). Although the motion for
summary judgment was noted for consideration on Friday, November 17, 2017, the Court did
not issue its order until January 22, 2018. Not only did plaintiff fail to mention that there was

24

additional evidence which it had been unable to obtain or to request a Rule 56(d) continuance in
25
26

its opposition, but even after Mr. Faske became available in mid-December 2017, plaintiff failed

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

1

to supplement the record or indicate in any way that it now had evidence regarding an issue

2

about which it had merely speculated in its opposition. Dkt. # 280 at 15-16.

3
4
5

Nevertheless, Mr. Faske offers evidence that throws into doubt whether the Office Policy
Manual on which Ms. Campbell relied to show that she had satisfied her duty to supervise the
conduct of brokers working at Investors Choice was in effect during the relevant time frame. The

6

fact of the Manual’s existence prior to 2015 was assumed by defendant’s expert, Emil Bowlds,
7
8
9

and plaintiff offered no evidence to the contrary. The Court relied on Mr. Bowlds’ opinion that
Ms. Campbell satisfied her obligation to supervise the conduct of the firm’s brokers by

10

maintaining those policies. If, as Mr. Faske suggests, the policies were not put into place until

11

June 2015, the dismissal of the claims against Ms. Campbell should be reconsidered despite

12

plaintiff’s failure to timely present its evidence on this key issue.

13

Pursuant to LCR 7(h)(3), Ms. Campbell will be given an opportunity to respond to the

14

motion for reconsideration and Mr. Faske’s declaration. The Clerk of Court is directed to renote

15

the motion (Dkt. # 326) on the Court’s calendar for Friday, February 9, 2018. Ms. Campbell’s

16

response is due on February 7th, and plaintiff’s reply is due on the note date. The motion for

17

reconsideration is DENIED as to Mr. Reiche.1

18
19
20

Dated this 1st day of February, 2018.

A

21

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
1

26

Mr. Faske’s declaration sheds no light on Mr. Reiche’s role in the alleged scheme to defraud
plaintiff’s decedent.
ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

-2-