C.F. et al v. Lashway et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying Plaintiffs' 73 Motion for Reconsideration and request for relief from the 1/17/2018 deadline to file amended complaint. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

9
10
11

C.F., et al.,
CASE NO. C16-1205RSM
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND RELIEF FROM DEADLINE

v.
LASHWAY, et al.,

15
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from
Deadline. Dkt. #73. On January 10, 2018, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended
Complaint (Dkt. #64) was granted in part and denied in part. See Dkt. #72. In that Order, Plaintiff

21

was permitted leave to file an amended complaint to remove Plaintiff J.P. and her next friend, to

22

amend their proposed class definition, to clarify allegations about Defendants’ policies and

23

practices, and to name the OFM as a defendant. Id. at 5. Plaintiff, however, was not permitted to

24

add the Arc of Washington as an organizational plaintiff. Id. at 4–5. Plaintiffs were ordered to

25

file their amended complaint by January 17, 2018. See id. at 5. Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration
ORDER – 1

1

of the Court’s partial denial and also ask the Court to stay the deadline set forth in the Court’s prior

2

Order (Dkt. #72) pending resolution of this motion. Dkt. #73 at 2. The Court has reviewed

3

Plaintiffs’ motion and remains unpersuaded.

4

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Consequently, the

5

Court will “ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior

6
7
8
9

ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the
Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. Plaintiffs fail to meet this standard.
Instead of showing a manifest error in the Court’s Order, or directing the Court to new facts or legal

10

authority which could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier, Plaintiffs’ motion for

11

reconsideration merely posits new arguments to support Plaintiffs’ requested addition of the Arc of

12

Washington as an organizational plaintiff. See Dkt. #73 at 2–6. Plaintiffs have already been given

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

two opportunities (in their motion to amend and their reply to Defendants’ opposition to that
motion) to explain why the Arc of Washington should be added as a plaintiff, and the Court will
not allow Plaintiffs to use Local Civil Rule 7(h) to present arguments it could have previously set
forth. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, as well as its request for relief from the January 17,
2018, deadline to file their amended complaint, is accordingly DENIED.
DATED this 17th day of January 2018.

20

A

21
22

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25

ORDER – 2