Integrity Trust et al v. Capital One, N.A. et al

Filing 45

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 44 Motion for Reconsideration of Sanctions, by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

INTEGRITY TRUST, by its trustee, Jon
Cuddeback,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

CAPITAL ONE, N.A., et al.,

Case No. C16-927RSL

13

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF
SANCTIONS

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of

16

Sanctions for Attorney Fees and Costs.” Dkt. # 44. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored

17

in this district and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or

18

“new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier

19

with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has shown neither. Moreover, in objecting

20

to the sanctions ordered by the Court, see Dkt. # 41, plaintiff argues that defendants inflated their

21

litigation costs by failing to move for dismissal of a case that plaintiff filed but “never

22

commenced against any defendant.” Dkt. # 44. Of course, defendants did move to dismiss this

23

case. Dkt. # 15. Plaintiff’s opposition to that motion to dismiss, Dkt. # 19, and eventual appeal

24

of the Court’s order granting that motion to dismiss, Dkt. # 35, belie plaintiff’s assertion that

25

anyone but plaintiff is to blame for extending the life of this frivolous lawsuit.

26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1
2
3

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 44) is
DENIED.

4
5

SO ORDERED this 19th day of May, 2017.

6
7

A

8

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2