Weil v. Citizens Telecom Services Company, LLC et al

Filing 75

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 74 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

DAVID R. WEIL,

CASE NO. C15-0835JLR
Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

CITIZENS TELECOM SERVICES
COMPANY, LLC, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
Before the court is Plaintiff David R. Weil’s motion for reconsideration of the
16
court’s order granting Defendants Citizens Telecom Services Company, LLC and
17
Frontier Communications Corporation’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for partial
18
summary judgment to limit Mr. Weil’s damages claim. (Mot. (Dkt. # 74: see also
19
11/8/19 Order (Dkt. # 73).) For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.
20
Pursuant to Local Rule LCR 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored
21
and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the prior
22

ORDER - 1

1

ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the attention

2

of the court earlier, through reasonable diligence. Local Rule W.D. Wash LCR 7(h)(1).

3

Mr. Weil presents no new facts or legal authority. (See generally Mot.) Instead,

4

Mr. Weil asserts that the court committed manifest error by overlooking or

5

misinterpreting the applicable law. (See Mot. at 1.) Mr. Weil’s motion consists of

6

arguments the court has already considered, addressed, and rejected. Mr. Weil’s

7

disagreements with the court’s analysis do not establish manifest error. See, e.g., Russell

8

v. Comcast Corp., No. C08-0309TSZ, 2009 WL 995720, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 13,

9

2009) (“Plaintiff’s motion is denied because, for the most part it simply rehashes

10

arguments already made and rejected by the Court, and otherwise fails to establish that

11

the Court committed a manifest error of law or fact.”) (citing Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d

12

708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978)).

13

Because Mr. Weil did not make a showing of manifest error in the court’s prior

14

ruling or identify any new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the

15

court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence, the court DENIES Mr. Weil’s motion

16

for reconsideration (Dkt. # 74).

17

Dated this 26th day of November, 2019.

18
19

A

20

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 2