Burleson v. Security Properties Residential, LLC et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 108 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MW)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

SHARON ELAINE BURLESON,

8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

10
11
12

SECURITY PROPERTIES
RESIDENTIAL, LLC, et al.,

CASE NO. C18-0513RSL
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

13
14
15
16

On November 4, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion to extend the deadline
for joining additional parties. The Court found that:

21

This case is eighteen months old and, following two amended complaints
and two rounds of motions to dismiss, involves a single cause of action
under the Fair Housing Act against the four named defendants. Dkt. # 85
at 3. Plaintiff knew at least eight weeks before the joinder deadline that
she wanted to add additional parties (Dkt. # 101 at 2), yet no motion was
filed by the deadline set by the Court or by the extended date proposed by
plaintiff. Plaintiff has not shown good cause or excusable neglect for an
extension of the joinder deadline.

22

Dkt. # 107 at 3. The Court also noted that the delay caused by late joinder would

23

adversely impact all remaining case management deadlines. Id. at 2. Plaintiff filed a

24

timely motion for reconsideration, arguing that justice requires that she be permitted to

17
18
19
20

25
26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

add four new defendants and that any adverse impact on the existing case management

2

schedule can be alleviated by bifurcating the matter into two discovery periods and two

3

trials, the first involving the existing defendants and the second involving the newly-

4

added defendants. Dkt. # 108.

5

Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time was denied because she had not shown

6

good cause or excusable neglect for her delay in seeking to join additional defendants.

7

Her recent submission does not remedy that problem, and the Court rejects plaintiff’s

8

proposed case management procedure as duplicative and burdensome.

9
10
11

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.
# 108) is DENIED.

12
13

DATED this 19th day of November, 2019.

14
15
16
17

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

-2-