Kalmbach v. National Rifle Association of America et al

Filing 44

ORDER denying Defendants' #39 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

Case No. C17-399 RSM

10
11
12

KATHARYN KALMBACH, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA, a New York corporation, and
INFOCISION, INC., a Delaware corporation,

17
18
19
20
21

Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt.
#39. Defendants ask that the Court reconsider its February 6, 2018, Minute Order re-noting

22

Defendants’ Motion to Deny Class Certification (Dkt. #37) to July 13, 2018, and requiring that

23

Plaintiff note her motion for class certification for that same day.

24
25
26

“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 ruling or a

27

showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention

28

earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. In conducting a class action, the Court has the authority

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1
2

to “determine the course of proceedings or prescribe measures to prevent undue repetition or
complication in presenting evidence or argument.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1).

3

The Court has reviewed Defendants’ Motion and finds that Defendants fail to show

4

manifest error or new facts or legal authority. Defendants instead argue that this is not an

5
6
7

ordinary situation and that Defendants’ Motion to Deny Class Certification should be heard on
its original noting date to promote early resolution of the class certification question and reduce

8

undue repetition and complication. Dkt. #39 at 2. After reviewing Defendants’ Motion and the

9

Response from Plaintiff, the Court finds that Defendants have failed to convince the Court that

10
11
12

reconsideration of its Minute Order will reduce undue repetition and complication.
Accordingly, and after having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the

13

record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration,

14

(Dkt. #39) is DENIED.

15

DATED this 26 day of February 2018.

16
17
18
19

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2