Thomas v. Everett Association of Credit Men, Inc et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 32 Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. No further attorney fees will be assessed based on Plaintiff's Motion. 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
10
11
12
13
14
15

DEANNA C. THOMAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. C17-599RSM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND
JUDGMENT

EVERETT ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT
MEN, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Deanna C. Thomas’ Motion to Alter or
Amend Judgment. Dkt. #32.
On March 9, 2018, this matter was dismissed without prejudice based on Plaintiff’s
complete failure to engage in the discovery process or respond to Defendants’ Motion seeking

22

dismissal. Dkt. #25. Plaintiff has since re-filed the same or nearly identical complaint in a new

23

action with the same counsel. See Case No. 2:18-cv-00615-RSM. If the Court were to grant

24
25
26
27

Plaintiff’s requested relief, she would have two parallel actions in the same court pursuing the
same claims. Plaintiff does not address this obvious problem by, e.g., offering to withdraw the
other action should relief be granted here. Instead, Plaintiff states that Defendants “make a big

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT - 1

1
2

deal” out of Plaintiff pursuing two identical cases at once, as if “this is somehow a bad thing,”
and asks, rhetorically or not, “what are Defendants trying to say here?” Dkt. #36 at 3.

3

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s substantive arguments for granting the requested

4

relief. A district court has considerable discretion when considering a motion to alter or amend

5
6
7

a judgment under Rule 59(e). Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063
(9th Cir. 2003). There are four grounds upon which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 1) the

8

motion is necessary to correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment is based;

9

2) the moving party presents newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence; 3) the

10
11
12

motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or 4) there is an intervening change in
controlling law. Id. Vacating a prior judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy,

13

to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll

14

v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise

15

arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised

16

earlier in the litigation.” Id.

17
18

Plaintiff has not met the Rule 59(e) standard. Plaintiff does not offer newly discovered

19

evidence or argue that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Instead,

20

Plaintiff argues that the Court’s sanction of dismissing the case was too extreme given the facts

21

as previously presented to the Court. Plaintiff has failed to show any legal error in the Court’s

22
23
24

Order. Dismissal was an available sanction, and Defendants presented valid arguments for that
sanction. Plaintiff failed to respond to those arguments. While manifest injustice is a valid

25

ground to alter or amend a judgment, Plaintiff has not shown that the Court’s Order resulted in

26

any injustice to Plaintiff, who has already refiled her case. Instead, Plaintiff’s counsel spends

27

most of the briefing discussing his scheduling issues related to a family health problem. As

28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT - 2

1

sympathetic as the Court is to this or any counsel’s family health emergencies, the Court has

2

already addressed how counsel failed to properly follow the Court’s procedures or withdraw in

3

this case, and the sanction of dismissal without prejudice has not resulted in any injustice to his

4

client.1 Plaintiff does not address the conservation of judicial resources, which weighs strongly

5
6

in denying this Motion.
Given all of the above, and having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and

7
8

exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS

9

that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Dkt. #32, is DENIED. No further attorney

10

fees will be assessed based on Plaintiff’s Motion.

11
12
DATED this 8 day of May, 2018.

13
14

A

15

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Defendant argues “Plaintiff’s argument fails to show any evidence of how this Court’s ruling affects Plaintiff in
any way,” that “[t]he argument centers on the unfairness to Plaintiff’s attorney,” and that “[t]his appears to be a
malpractice repair argument.” Dkt. #35 at 6.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT - 3