Jennings(s) v. Wells Fargo et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying plaintiff's 17 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS) cc plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

SUZANNE JENNINGS(S),
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

No. C17-406RSL

v.
WELLS FARGO, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the

15

Court’s order dismissing all claims against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Mortgage Electronic

16

Registration Systems. Dkt. # 17. Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and

17

will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal

18

authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable

19

diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has not met this burden. Rather, plaintiff appears to argue

20

that her TILA rescission letter deprived this Court of jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not address the

21

grounds for the Court’s order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss, namely, that plaintiff’s

22

claims – including the TILA claim on which plaintiff now relies – are time-barred and

23

insufficiently pled. Accordingly, plaintiff has not shown manifest error or the existence of new

24

facts or legal authority justifying reconsideration of the Court’s order.

25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 17) is
DENIED.

3
4

SO ORDERED this 11th day of May, 2017.

5

A

6

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

-2-