Tellis v. Alaska Airlines

Filing 65

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 60 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Richard A. Jones.(MW)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

10
11
12

HERMAN CHARLES TELLIS,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No.2:17-cv-00901-RAJ

v.

ORDER

ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21

I.

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt.
# 60. For the reasons below, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

22
23

II.

BACKGROUND

24

The facts of this case are set forth in greater detail in a previous Order issued by the

25

Court. Dkt. # 44. Those facts will not be repeated and are incorporated in this Order. As

26

relevant here, after the Court granted leave to amend, Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended

27

Complaint on June 20, 2018. Dkt. # 45. On July 5, 2018, Defendant filed its Motion to

28

ORDER – 1

1

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 12(b)(6). On October 25, 2018, the Court granted Defendant’s motion. Dkt. #

3

60.

4
III.

5

DISCUSSION

6

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored under the Local Rules for the Western

7

District of Washington. See LCR 7(h)(1). Thus, “in the absence of a showing of manifest

8

error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have

9

been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence,” such motions

10

will ordinarily be denied. Id. Motions for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen

11

(14) days of the order on which the motion is based. LCR 7(h)(2).

12

While a previous order can be reconsidered and amended under Rule 59(e), the rule

13

offers an “extraordinary remedy” to be used sparingly. A motion to reconsider “should not

14

be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with

15

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in

16

the controlling law.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kona

17

Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59.

18

Rule 60(b) allows a party to seek relief from an order under a “limited set of circumstances,

19

including fraud, mistake, and newly discovered evidence.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d

20

737, 744 (9th Cir. 2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).

21

Plaintiff argues that this case should be reopened because his Fourth Amendment

22

Complaint was filed absent leave from this Court. Dkt. # 60. Accordingly, Plaintiff

23

appears to believe that all subsequent orders and motions are inherently erroneous. Id.

24

This argument fails because the Court explicitly granted Plaintiff leave to amend and

25

ordered that he file his Fourth Amended Complaint within twenty days of that order. See

26

Dkt. # 44 (“To the extent that Plaintiff moves for leave to amend his complaint to allege a

27

violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1625.22, his Motion is GRANTED.”). As Plaintiff provides no

28

ORDER – 2

1

basis for reconsideration, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Dkt. # 60.

2
3

DATED this 17th day of July, 2019.

A

4
5

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 3