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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?