Ferguson v. Waid

Filing 91

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 90 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11

SANDRA L. FERGUSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16
17

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

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

18

Reconsideration. Dkt. #90. The Court has determined that responsive briefing is unnecessary.

19

See LCR 7(h)(3).

20
21

Defendant argues the Court stated an incorrect legal standard in footnote three of its
May 11, 2018, Order Denying Parties’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Dkt. #85.

22
23

However, the instant Motion also states, “[a]lthough Defendant does not believe that the

24

Court’s Order prevents Defendant from raising this issue in his trial brief, out of an abundance

25

of caution and to preserve his rights, Defendant brings this Motion for Reconsideration under

26

LCR 7(h) as to this particular matter.” Id. at 1–2.

27
28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 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.

5
The Court appreciates Defendant’s “abundance of caution.” However, the Court’s

6
7

statement of law in footnote 3 was dictum. It was unnecessary to the decision in the case,

8

contained in a footnote, and proceeded by “the Court notes that…” See Dkt. #85 at 7. Because

9

it has not been made part of a ruling in this matter, Defendant’s right to raise this issue in his

10
11
12
13
14
15

trial brief is preserved. Accordingly, this Motion for Reconsideration is properly denied as
moot.
Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. #90, is DENIED.
DATED this 25th day of May, 2018.

16
17
18
19
20

A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2