G.O. America Shipping Company, Inc. v. China Cosco Shipping Corporation Limited et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 57 Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9

Case No. C17-0912 RSM
G.O. AMERICA SHIPPING COMPANY,
INC., a corporation registered in the Republic
of the Marshall Islands,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

CHINA COSCO SHIPPING
CORPORATION LIMITED, a company
registered in the People Republic of China;
COSCO SHIPPING LINES CO, Ltd. a
subsidiary of CHINA COSCO SHIPPING
CORPORATION LIMITED; CHINA
SHIPPING INDUSTRY, (Shanghai
Changxing) Co. Ltd., a subsidiary of CHINA
COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION
LIMITED; and COSCO SHIPPING HEAVY
INDUSTRY CO., subsidiaries of CHINA
COSCO SHIPPING CORPORATION
LIMITED,

22

Defendants.

23
24

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt.

25

#57. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its prior Order vacating the Rule B attachment of the

26

M/V Taicang on the basis that it has now filed a Second Amended Complaint naming the owner
27
28

of the vessel. Id.

ORDER - 1

1

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h). “The court will ordinarily deny

2

such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of

3

new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with

4

reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). In this case, the Court is not persuaded that it should

5

reconsider its prior Order. Plaintiff does not demonstrate manifest error in the prior ruling, nor
6
7

does it present new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the Court’s

8

earlier attention with reasonable diligence. Indeed, much of the argument presented by Plaintiff

9

was already presented to the Court during the Rule E(4)(f) hearing. As for the newly-amended

10

Complaint, nothing prevents Plaintiff from making a new Rule B Attachment motion, based on

11

the Second Amended Complaint, which the Court will then review under the applicable
12
13
14

standards. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #57) is DENIED.
DATED this 3rd day of August 2017.

15

A

16

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER - 2