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)

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