Bank of New York Mellon v. Stafne et al

Filing 139

ORDER denying dft Scott Stafne's 138 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Chief Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

BANK OF NEW YORK, MELLON,
8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C16-0077TSZ
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
SCOTT STAFNE, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Scott Stafne’s Motion for
Reconsideration, which asks the Court to reconsider its prior Order affirming Judge Zilly’s
refusal to recuse himself as the presiding judge in this case. Dkts. #137 and #138. For the
reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES the motion for reconsideration.
Mr. Stafne filed a Motion for Recusal on May 26, 2017. Dkt. #134. The Presiding
Judge, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, declined to recuse himself and, in accordance with the
Local Rules of this District, referred the matter to the Undersigned for further review. Local
Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 3(e); Dkt. #136. On June 2, 2017, the Undersigned affirmed Judge
Zilly’s decision. Dkt. #137. The Undersigned noted that Mr. Stafne had failed to offer any
evidence supporting his allegation that Judge Zilly suffered some form of mental impairment
simply because of his age. The Undersigned further noted that Mr. Stafne had incorrectly
assumed that Judge Zilly was serving in his capacity without being compensated simply by

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION- 1

1 virtue of having taken senior status, and that he failed to cite a single legal precedent tending to
2 establish that the fact of a presiding judge’s senior status has ever been held (in and of itself) to
3 constitute a proper basis for recusal.

Dkt. #137.

Mr. Stafne now argues that this Court

4 committed manifest error in its prior ruling because it failed to provide a complete analysis of his
5 allegation that volunteer, uncompensated judges may not serve as Article III judges.
6

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The court will ordinarily

7 deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a
8 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention
9 earlier with reasonable diligence.”

LCR 7(h)(1).

In this case, Mr. Stafne presents no

10 persuasive argument that this Court committed manifest error in its prior Order, nor any new
11 facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier
12 without reasonable diligence. For these reasons, his motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #138) is
13 DENIED.
14

The Clerk SHALL provide copies of this order to Defendants and to all counsel of record.

15

Dated this 6 day of June, 2017.

16

A

17

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION- 2