City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 756

ORDER granting Defendants' 585 MOTION for Reconsideration re 581 Order on Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (LH)

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RAJ-MLP Document 756 Filed 07/13/23 Page 1 of 3

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

12
13

CITY OF SEATTLE,

14
15
16

Plaintiff,

Case No. 2:16-cv-00107-RAJ

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20

I. INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration

21

(“Motion”). Dkt. # 585. Having considered the Motion, the relevant portions of the

22

record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. For the

23

reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

24

II. DISCUSSION

25

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a

26

“showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which

27

could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”

28

ORDER – 1

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RAJ-MLP Document 756 Filed 07/13/23 Page 2 of 3

1

Local R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1).

2

Defendants Monsanto Company, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia LLC (“Defendants”)

3

request that the Court reconsider the portion of its March 23, 2023 Order Granting in Part

4

and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 581)

5

(“Order”). The Order dismissed Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses 8, 9, and 13, which

6

relate to time limitations. Defendants argue that they remain entitled to assert those

7

defenses to the extent the City seeks to recover for alleged harm to its proprietary

8

interests. Dkt. # 585 at 5-6.

9

This Court previously noted that “[i]n this action to restore the purity of its

10

waterways, Seattle acts in its sovereign capacity.” Dkt. # 60 at 9. The Order granting

11

Plaintiff’s motion on the statute of limitations issue was based on this ruling. However,

12

Defendants contend, and Plaintiff has later conceded, that the City may otherwise seek

13

relief for proprietary harm and that the continuing tort doctrine resolves any statute of

14

limitations issues. Dkt. # 518 at 38; id. at 64. Accordingly, the Court revises its ruling to

15

permit Defendants to assert Affirmative Defenses 8, 9, and 13 against any claim asserted

16

in the City’s proprietary capacity.
III. CONCLUSION

17
18
19

For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion for
Reconsideration. Dkt. # 585.

20
21

DATED this 13th day of July, 2023.

22

A

23
24

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

ORDER – 2

Case 2:16-cv-00107-RAJ-MLP Document 756 Filed 07/13/23 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 3