Baker v. Microsoft Corporation et al
ORDER denying plaintiff's 150 Motion for an indicative ruling on his untimely motion for reconsideration by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
RICHARD J BAKER,
CASE NO. C16-396 RAJ
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s request for an indicative ruling
on his untimely motion for reconsideration. Dkt. # 150. The Court DENIES the motion.
On January 3, 2017, the Court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Dkt. # 135. According to Local Rule 7(h), Plaintiff then had fourteen days to seek
reconsideration of this Order. W.D. Wash. Local Rules LCR 7(h)(2). On January 24,
well outside the fourteen day deadline, Plaintiff requested leave to file his motion for
reconsideration. Dkt. # 136. The Court denied this motion. Dkt. # 149. The Court gave
two justifications for this denial: 1) Plaintiff did not carry his burden to show why he
could not have discovered “new material fact evidence” in a timely manner, and 2)
Plaintiff’s appeal divested this Court of jurisdiction.
Plaintiff now requests that the Court rule on his untimely motion for
2 reconsideration pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. Dkt. # 150. Plaintiff is
3 essentially seeking an end-run around his missed deadline. The Court did not deny his
4 motion for leave solely because of the appeal, but also because the motion was meritless.
5 The Court will not allow Plaintiff to circumvent this district’s Local Rules. The Court
6 denied his motion for leave to file an untimely motion for reconsideration (Dkt. ## 136,
7 149) and therefore cannot rule on the untimely motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 142).
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. # 150.
Dated this 31st day of March, 2017.
The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge
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?