Lindsay v. Key Bank National Association et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying plaintiff's 19 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 MATTHEW JAMES LINDSAY, ESQ., 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 12 KEY BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., 13 Defendants. ) ) CASE NO. C17-0354RSM ) ) ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) 14 15 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of 16 this Court’s prior Order dismissing his case. Dkt. #19. Relying on Federal Rule of Civil 17 Procedure 54(b) and legal authority from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Northern 18 District of Illinois, Plaintiff appears to argue that this Court should revisit its earlier decision 19 20 21 that the probate exception precludes jurisdiction in this Court over Plaintiff’s claims. Id. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED. 22 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The court will ordinarily 23 deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a 24 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention 25 26 27 earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). In this case, Plaintiff fails to meet either showing. 28 ORDER PAGE - 1 1 First, Plaintiff’s reliance on Rule 54(b) is misplaced. That Rule applies to cases where 2 there are multiple claims and/or parties and the Court has resolved only some of the claims, 3 leaving others remaining to be litigated. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. In such cases, Rule 54(b) allows 4 federal courts to enter partial judgment on the resolved claims, leaving the unresolved claims to 5 proceed in litigation. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(b). In this case, all claims have been resolved, and 6 7 the case has been dismissed in its entirety. Dkts. #17 and #18. Thus, Rule 54(b) is 8 inapplicable. In any event, Local Civil Rule 7(h) sets forth the applicable standard for motions 9 for reconsideration in this Court. 10 Likewise, Plaintiff’s reliance on an Order issued out of the Northern District of Illinois 11 is also misplaced. Dkt. #19, Attachment (cited by Plaintiff as Exhibit 99). In that case, 12 13 Bleecker v. Krantz, Case No. C05-7309RWG (N.D. Ill. Sept. 26, 2006), the plaintiff had filed a 14 complaint seeking to remove the defendant as a trustee, to prohibit a relative or other insider 15 friend of defendant from serving as his successor, and to appoint a neutral third party approved 16 by the court as trustee. Dkt. #19, Attachment. The case had been brought in federal court 17 18 under diversity jurisdiction, and the defendant had moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction 19 based on the probate exception and based on the failure to meet the minimum amount in 20 controversy. Id. The Court denied the motion to dismiss. With respect to the probate 21 exception, the court found that because the plaintiff had made claims for breaches of fiduciary 22 duty, the claims fell outside of the probate exception. Id. However, the court went on to 23 24 explain that simply because the claims were outside the probate exception, the plaintiff was still 25 required to establish diversity as a basis of jurisdiction. Id. The court then determined that 26 diversity jurisdiction had been established, and denied the motion to dismiss. Id. 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 2 1 Setting aside the fact that the Bleecker case is not controlling authority in this District, 2 and that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate why that authority could not have been brought to 3 the Court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence, the instant matter is distinguishable. 4 Here, this Court found not only that Plaintiff’s claims fell within the probate exception, but that 5 Plaintiff failed to demonstrate diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. #17. Indeed, Plaintiff had 6 7 specifically stated that he would not dismiss the non-diverse parties from the action. Dkts. #13 8 and #17 at 3. The Court also noted that Plaintiff had failed to adequately plead any breach of 9 fiduciary duty claims. Dkt. #17 at 4-5. 10 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff presents no persuasive argument that this 11 Court committed manifest error in its prior Order, nor any new facts or legal authority which 12 13 could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier without reasonable diligence. For 14 these reasons, his motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #19) is DENIED. 15 DATED this 7 day of June, 2017. 16 17 A 18 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER PAGE - 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?