The Hanover Insurance Company v. Intrepid Law Group LLC et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying Defendants Takenaka/Rounds's 63 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (SR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 13 14 v. INTREPID LAW GROUP, LLC, et al., ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS TAKENAKA/ROUNDS’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C20-0662JLR Before the court is Defendants Tracy Takenaka and Brian Rounds’s (collectively, 17 “Takenaka/Rounds”) motion for reconsideration of the court’s May 18, 2021 order 18 granting in part Plaintiff The Hanover Insurance Company’s (“Hanover”) motion for 19 reconsideration of the court’s March 18, 2021 order denying Hanover’s motion for 20 summary judgment. (See MFR (Dkt. # 63); see also 5/18/21 Order (Dkt. # 61); 3/18/21 21 Order (Dkt. # 53).) Motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and the court ordinarily 22 will deny such motions unless the moving party shows (a) manifest error in the prior ORDER - 1 1 ruling, or (b) new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the attention 2 of the court earlier through reasonable diligence. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). 3 The court has carefully reviewed Takenaka/Rounds’s motion. Takenaka/Rounds 4 present no new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the court’s 5 attention earlier with reasonable diligence. (See generally MFR.) Instead, they now 6 argue that the claims they brought in state court against Defendants Intrepid Law Group, 7 LLC (“Intrepid”) and Thi Huynh are not subject to the “Outside Entities” exclusion in the 8 professional liability insurance policy at issue in this case because the claims (1) neither 9 “arise” nor “originate” from Mr. Huynh’s control or management of Green Sky 10 Productions, LLC (“Green Sky”) and Defendant 4200 Letitia, LLC (“Letitia”) and (2) are 11 not “in any way related to” Green Sky or Letitia. (See generally id.) Takenaka/Rounds 12 do not explain why they could not have raised the legal authority they cite in their motion 13 in their response to Hanover’s motion for reconsideration. (See generally id.; see also 14 4/2/21 Order (Dkt. # 55) (directing Defendants to file a response limited to the 15 applicability of the “Outside Entities” exclusion); Takenaka/Rounds Resp. (Dkt. # 56).) 16 Moreover, the court’s May 18, 2021 order fully analyzed the applicability of the “Outside 17 Entities” exclusion to Takenaka/Rounds’s claims. (See 5/18/21 Order at 11-15.) 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 ORDER - 2 1 For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that Takenaka/Rounds have made 2 neither of the required Local Rule LCR 7(h)(1) showings. (See generally MFR.) 3 Therefore, the court DENIES Takenaka/Rounds’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 63). 4 Dated this 2nd day of June, 2021. 5 A 6 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?