Ferguson v. Waid

Filing 35

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 30 Second Motion for Reconsideration signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (TH)

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. C17-1685 RSM
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
BRIAN J. WAID AND THE WAID
MARITAL COMMUNITY,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s January 25, 2018, “Motion for

17
18

Reconsideration and For Three-Day Extension of Deadline…” Dkt. #30. This is Plaintiff’s

19

second Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff’s first Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #27)

20

asked the Court to reconsider the January 12, 2018, Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion

21

for Relief from Deadline (Dkt. #24), which gave Plaintiff an extra week to file a response brief

22
23
24

to Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt #16). The Court denied Plaintiff’s
first Motion for Reconsideration, and noted that the deadline for Plaintiff to file her response

25

brief had passed. Dkt. #28. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its decision and to

26

accept her Response brief three days after the deadline. Dkt. #30. The Court has determined

27

that it can rule on the instant Motion without a response from Defendants. See LCR 7(h)(3).

28

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). “The court will ordinarily

2

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

3

showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention

4

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

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion
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.
The Court previously granted a week-long extension for Plaintiff to file her Response
brief. Dkt. #24 at 2. The length of that extension was based on the limited information
provided to the Court by Plaintiff. Then Plaintiff filed her first Motion for Reconsideration.

13

The Court found it procedurally improper because Plaintiff did not demonstrate error in the

14

Court’s prior ruling or submit new facts or legal authority. Dkt. #28 at 2–3. Instead, Plaintiff

15

was really seeking relief from a deadline. The Court addressed the merits of such a motion,

16

stating that Plaintiff had made it impossible for the Court to rule on that request prior to the

17
18

deadline. Id. at 2.

19

The same is true with the Second Motion for Reconsideration. Although titled as such,

20

Plaintiff again fails to demonstrate error in the Court’s prior ruling or to submit new facts or

21

legal authority. Instead, she respectfully requests the Court “grant a three-day extension and

22
23
24

accept and consider her now-complete response brief, extend the noting date for Defendant’s
motion by three days, so that Defendant has an equal three-day extension to file a Reply, and

25

consider all of the filings by both parties before deciding Defendant’s wholly dispositive

26

motion for Judgment on the pleadings.” Dkt. #30 at 2.

27
28

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2

1

Plaintiff presents no legal authority to support her request.

She cites to no rule

2

permitting the extension of a deadline after it has passed, and no case where a Court has

3

granted such a request under similar circumstances. Plaintiff argues she “was diligent, but

4

simply was not able to meet her obligations, as a lawyer, to her own clients, while meeting the

5
6
7

deadline imposed by the Court, even with the one-week extension.” Id.
After a review of the applicable Local Rules above, it is clear to the Court that this

8

Motion cannot be granted.

9

reconsideration or for relief from a deadline. The Court notes that Plaintiff has been given a

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff does not meet the standard for either a motion for

prior extension of time to file her response, and the record does not demonstrate that she has
been diligent in either preparing her response brief or notifying the Court of her need for more
time. Accordingly, the Court denies this Motion.

14

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby

15

finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #30) is DENIED.

16

The Court will not consider Plaintiff’s untimely Response (Dkt. #29).

17
18

DATED this 29 day of January 2018.

19
20
21
22

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3