Market Place North Condominium Association v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company
Filing
51
ORDER denying Defendant's 45 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
10
11
12
MARKET PLACE NORTH
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a
Washington non-profit corporation,
Case No. C17-625RSM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
15
16
AFFILIATED FM INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
17
18
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s May 18, 2018, Motion for
19
Reconsideration. Dkt. #45. Plaintiff has filed a Response, Dkt. #50, at the Court’s direction.
20
See LCR 7(h)(3).
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant argues the Court made two factual misstatements in its May 7, 2018, Order
granting in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. #37. Specifically,
Defendant states:
As part of the “Background” section of the Court’s Order, the
Court included the following: “The intrusive investigation was
scheduled to begin in May of 2017, and AFM eventually agreed to
participate and pay half of the associated costs, estimated to be
around $150,000. See Dkt. #20-6. . . . In June, around the time the
investigation was ending, AFM advised that it had changed its
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
position and was now unwilling to pay any of the costs
associated with the investigation.” See Dkt. #20-6. AFM
respectfully brings this Motion for Reconsideration solely to ask
the Court to correct the record as to the statements highlighted
above, which the document at Dkt. #20-6 does not support and
which were controverted by other evidence that AFM submitted
with its Response to MPN’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Dkt. #45 at 2 (emphasis in original) (reformatted for clarity). Defendant cites to significant
factual evidence to support its position. See id.
8
In Response, Plaintiff does not challenge Defendant’s presentation of facts or citations
9
to the record. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s statements in the prior Order were not
10
11
12
findings of fact, and “all of that is still to be adjudicated at a later date because nothing in the
Court’s May 7 Order disposed of those issues.” Dkt. #50 at 1–2.
13
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). “The court will ordinarily
14
deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a
15
showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention
16
earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id.
17
18
The Court appreciates Defendant’s desire to set the factual record straight. However,
19
the Court’s factual statements in the “Background” section of its May 7 Order were not
20
material to its decision to deny summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims. See Dkt. #37.
21
These facts were not material to the Court’s finding that “The Association’s 2015-16 AFM all-
22
23
24
25
26
27
risk property policy covers both water intrusion damage and mold.” See id. Accordingly,
Defendant’s right to raise this issue at a later date is preserved, and this Motion for
Reconsideration is properly denied as moot.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. #45, is DENIED.
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
1
2
DATED this 30 day of May, 2018.
3
4
5
6
7
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 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?