Dahlstrom v. United States of America et al

Filing 94

ORDER denying plaintiff's 93 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 RAJU T. DAHLSTROM, 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, v. Case No. C16-1874RSL ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. 12 13 On April 8, 2019, the Court granted the individual defendants’ motion for 14 summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s wrongful termination in violation of public 15 policy claim on the grounds that (a) plaintiff failed to respond to defendants’ argument 16 that a wrongful discharge claim cannot be asserted against any entity other than plaintiff’s 17 employer, (b) the nature of the employment contract as between an employer and an 18 employee suggests that a claim that public policy prevents the termination of the contract 19 runs against the employer, not against other employees who may have been involved in 20 the decision to terminate the employment relationship, (c) the only relevant case law 21 supports that conclusion, and (d) the public policy exception to the general rule of at-will 22 employment is narrow and should be extended with caution. Plaintiff filed a timely 23 motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his wrongful discharge claim. In the 24 alternative, plaintiff seeks certification of the issue to the Washington Supreme Court. 25 26 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 1 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only 2 upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority 3 which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable 4 diligence.” LCR Rule 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has not met his burden. In their motion for 5 summary judgment, the individual defendants squarely raised the issue of whether a claim 6 of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy could be asserted against anyone other 7 than the employer. Plaintiff offers no justification for his failure to acknowledge or 8 respond to defendants’ argument in his opposition memorandum and has not shown any 9 new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the Court’s attention 10 earlier. Nor has plaintiff shown manifest error: he has not identified any case in which a 11 wrongful discharge claim (as opposed to a statutory claim under the Washington Law 12 Against Discrimination Act) was allowed to proceed against a fellow employee, and he 13 has not offered any justification for expanding the narrow exception in the circumstances 14 presented here. 15 Plaintiff also suggests that the Court manifestly erred by failing to certify to the 16 Washington Supreme Court the issue of whether a wrongful discharge in violation of 17 public policy claim can be asserted against a fellow employee. Plaintiff did not request 18 certification in his opposition memorandum, and the Court rejects the contention that it 19 had an obligation to sua sponte consider the appropriateness of certification under RCW 20 2.60.020 once a controlling issue of state law was identified. Certification is a matter 21 within the sound discretion of the Court, and plaintiff cites no case in which an abuse of 22 discretion or reversible error was found simply because the district court did not sua 23 sponte consider certification. In addition, the certification process serves the important 24 judicial interests of efficiency and comity. As noted by the United States Supreme Court, 25 certification saves “time, energy and resources and helps build a cooperative judicial 26 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 1 federalism.” Lehman Bros. v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391 (1974). Waiting until after he 2 received an unfavorable ruling from the Court to request certification destroys any 3 efficiencies that may have been achieved through the certification procedure. 4 5 6 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration or certification is DENIED. 7 8 Dated this 3rd day of May, 2019. A 9 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3

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?