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)

Download PDF
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?