James v. Paton et al

Filing 342

ORDER denying 337 Motion for Reconsideration, denying 340 Motion to Lift Stay and denying 338 Motion for Leave to File, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (KERR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12

_______________________________________
)
NANCY L. JAMES, Chapter 7 Trustee
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
JAMES C. PATON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

Civil Case No. C15-1914RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

13
14

On January 25, 2017, the Court found that the debtor, Breast Cancer Prevention Fund

15

(“BCPF”), was not entitled to utilize joint cost allocation during the relevant time period. Clark

16

Nuber seeks reconsideration of this ruling on the grounds that (a) there is a genuine issue of fact

17

regarding Clark Nuber’s responsibility and liability for the improper use of joint cost allocation

18

and (b) the Court erred in not deferring to Clark Nuber’s professional judgment and/or its

19

experts’ opinions regarding how to apply SOP 98-2. Neither argument is persuasive. The Court

20

did not make a finding regarding whether Clark Nuber was or was not negligent in the

21

preparation of BCPF’s tax returns and audits: that issue was expressly reserved. Nor has Clark

22

Nuber shown that the Court manifestly erred when it concluded that the undisputed facts of this

23

case establish that it was improper to use joint cost allocation under the plain, non-technical

24

terms of SOP 98-2. The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

In the alternative, Clark Nuber seeks certification of the summary judgment order for

2

immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit. This matter has been stayed so that the validity and scope

3

of the Attorney General’s claim in In re Breast Cancer Prevention Fund, Case No. 13-16150-

4

MLB, can be resolved before the parties invest any more time or money establishing causation

5

and/or damages in this proceeding. An appeal of the joint cost allocation issue at this point

6

would multiply proceedings and would likely waste the time and resources of all involved. The

7

request for certification is DENIED without prejudice to it being raised again by motion when

8

and if the stay is lifted.1

9
10

Dated this 22nd day of February, 2017.

11

A

12

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1

“Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Response to Clark Nuber’s Motion for Certification” (Dkt.
# 338) and Clark Nuber’s “Motion to Lift Stay” (Dkt. # 340) are also DENIED.

26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 2