Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., et al

Filing 225

ORDER denying Defendant AFS's 222 Motion Partial for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 CASE NO. C17-0814JLR ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 Before the court is Defendant Amazon Fulfillment Services’ (“AFS”) motion for 17 partial reconsideration. (Mot. (Dkt. # 222).) For the reasons stated below, the motion is 18 DENIED. 19 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, 20 and the court ordinarily will deny such motions unless the moving party shows (a) 21 manifest error in the prior ruling, or (b) new facts or legal authority which could not have 22 been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). ORDER - 1 1 AFS presents no new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to 2 the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. (See generally Mot.) Instead, AFS 3 asserts that the court committed manifest error by overlooking certain evidence in its 4 order on the parties’ motions for partial summary judgment (8/1/2019 Order (Dkt. 5 # 214)). (See Mot. at 1.) 6 AFS’s motion consists primarily of arguments it already presented in its summary 7 judgment briefing that rely on evidence the court addressed at length in its August 1, 8 2019 order. AFS’s disagreements with the court’s analysis of that evidence do not 9 establish manifest error. See, e.g., Russell v. Comcast Corp., No. C08-0309TSZ, 2009 10 WL 995720, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 13, 2009) (“Plaintiff’s motion is denied because, for 11 the most part it simply rehashes arguments already made and rejected by the Court, and 12 otherwise fails to establish that the Court committed a manifest error of law or fact.”) 13 (citing Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978)). 14 Because AFS has not made a showing of manifest error in the court’s prior ruling 15 or brought to the court’s attention any new facts or legal authority that could not have 16 been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence, the court DENIES 17 AFS’s motion for partial reconsideration (Dkt. # 222). 18 Dated this 20th day of August, 2019. 19 20 A 21 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 22 ORDER - 2

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?