Wagafe et al v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al

Filing 85

ORDER denying Defendants' 73 Motion to Reconsideration Class Certification, signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (SWT)

Download PDF
1 THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 11 CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ 12 ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on 13 behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 DONALD TRUMP, President of the 17 United States, et al., 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 ORDER This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider Class Certification. Dkt. # 73. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Having reviewed the briefs, relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES Defendants’ 23 24 25 26 Motion. “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). “The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior 27 ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to 28 its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. ORDER-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Defendants do not meet this standard. Defendants’ motion reargues its position that the Court should not certify the class—a position the Court rejected. Defendants couch their motion in terms of the Court’s manifest errors but in reality the motion argues that the Court should revisit its conclusions. Parties cannot use motions for reconsideration to simply obtain a second bite at the apple, and this is what Defendants 7 appear to be doing with this motion. For these reasons, the Court DENIES the motion. 8 Dkt. # 73. 9 10 Dated this 16th day of August, 2017. 11 12 A 13 14 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER-2

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?