Ferguson v. Waid

Filing 28

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 27 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
13
14
15
16

SANDRA L. FERGUSON,
Plaintiff,

Case No. C17-1685RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
BRIAN J. WAID AND THE WAID
MARITAL COMMUNITY,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s January 22, 2018, Motion for

17
18

Reconsideration. Dkt. #27. Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider the January 12, 2018, Order

19

Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Deadline, Dkt. #24.

20

determined that responsive briefing is unnecessary. See LCR 7(h)(3).

21
22
23
24

The Court has

The Court’s Order addressed Plaintiff’s request for relief from the deadline to respond
to Defendant’s still-pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Dkt. #16. The Court found
that Plaintiff’s request to strike the noting date for Defendant’s Motion until after the parties

25

have filed their Joint Status Report was moot because the Joint Status Report had been filed

26

before the Court could rule. Dkt. #24 at 1. However, the Court also found that Plaintiff had

27

indicated, in the Joint Status Report itself rather than briefing on the Motion, her need for more

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

time to adequately research and prepare responsive briefing. The Court therefore granted an

2

extension of one week, and found that an extension of greater than one week had not been

3

requested or justified in Plaintiff’s Motion. Id. at 2.

4
5
6
7

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). “The court will ordinarily
deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a
showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention

8

earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. “A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever

9

possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion

10
11
12
13

prior to the deadline.” LCR 7(j). Parties should not assume that the motion will be granted and
must comply with the existing deadline unless the court orders otherwise.” Id.
Plaintiff is using the instant Motion for Reconsideration not to challenge the Court’s

14

Order but to request more time to respond to Defendant’s Motion.

15

improper. The arguments Plaintiff now makes for needing more time to respond could have

16

This is procedurally

and should have been made in her original Motion for relief from the deadline. By making

17
18

these arguments now, ten days after the Court’s Order and on the day that her response brief is

19

due, she has made it impossible for the Court to rule prior to the deadline. The deadline has

20

now passed. In any event, Plaintiff does not present evidence or argument showing manifest

21

error in the Court’s prior ruling or new facts or legal authority which could not have been

22
23
24

brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Instead, Plaintiff argues that, “[i]n
retrospect, Ms. Ferguson realizes that she should have proposed… a continuance of more like

25

two weeks.” Dkt. #27 at 2 (emphasis in original). Plaintiff argues that Defendant has not been

26

reasonable in stipulating to an extension of the noting date for the underlying Motion for

27

Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff discusses her busy schedule and the complicated nature

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

1

and number of legal issues for which research has taken more time than expected. Plaintiff

2

argues that Defendant will not be prejudiced if Plaintiff has additional time to respond. Id. at

3

10. None of these arguments are relevant for a Motion for Reconsideration, and as discussed

4

above, are untimely. Accordingly, the Court will deny this Motion.

5
6
7

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. #27, is DENIED.

8
9

DATED this 23 day of January, 2018.

10
11
12
13
14

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3