Boone v. Allaben et al

Filing 45

ORDER re Defendant's 44 MOTION to Certify or for Reconsideration re 42 Order. The court DENIES Mr. Allaben's motion for reconsideration. Mr. Boone shall file his response to Mr. Allaben's arguments regarding certification by May 23, 2022. Signed by Judge James L. Robart. (LH)

Download PDF
Case 2:21-cv-01562-JLR Document 45 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 MICHAEL BOONE, 10 11 v. 12 Plaintiff, CASE NO. C21-1562JLR ORDER JOHN ALLABEN, 13 Defendant. 14 15 Before the court is Defendant John Allaben’s motion to certify questions to the 16 Washington Supreme Court or, in the alternative, for reconsideration. (Mot. (Dkt. # 44).) 17 In this order, the court addresses the portion of Mr. Allaben’s motion in which he asks the 18 court to reconsider its April 25, 2022 order granting Plaintiff Michael Boone’s motion for 19 reconsideration of the court’s March 21, 2022 order granting Mr. Allaben’s motion for 20 summary judgment. (Id. at 8-10; see 4/25/22 Order (Dkt # 42); 3/21/22 Order (Dkt. 21 # 36).) 22 ORDER - 1 Case 2:21-cv-01562-JLR Document 45 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 3 1 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” and the “court will ordinarily deny 2 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.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). The court 5 DENIES Mr. Allaben’s motion for reconsideration because he has met neither standard. 6 To the extent Mr. Allaben seeks clarification, the court directs him to page 6 of the April 7 25, 2022 order, in which the court stated its understanding that Mr. Boone bases his 8 negligence claim on Mr. Allaben’s alleged breach of the duty of reasonable care that 9 “every individual owes . . . to refrain from causing foreseeable harm in interactions with 10 others.” (April 25, 2022 Order at 6 (quoting Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma, 442 P.3d 11 608, 613-14 (Wash. 2019).) In determining whether Mr. Allaben breached that duty on 12 July 7, 2019, the jury will consider the circumstances under which Mr. Allaben pushed 13 Mr. Boone and decide whether a reasonably prudent person would have done the same 14 thing in Mr. Allaben’s position. See 16 Wash. Prac., Tort Law and Practice § 2:33 (5th 15 ed.). Furthermore, Mr. Allaben’s concern that allowing Mr. Boone’s negligence claim to 16 proceed will deprive him of a “defense of others” defense appears to be misplaced. The 17 court has identified at least one Washington Court of Appeals decision that acknowledges 18 a “defense of others” defense to negligence. See, e.g., Jones v. Hapa United LLC, 181 19 Wash. App. 1028, at *2 (June 10, 2014) (unpublished) (citing RCW 9A.16.020(3); and 20 stating that “[d]efense of others would, therefore, negate negligence”). 21 22 Mr. Allaben also moves for an order certifying questions to the Washington Supreme Court. (See Mot. at 4-8.) Mr. Boone shall file his response to Mr. Allaben’s ORDER - 2 Case 2:21-cv-01562-JLR Document 45 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 3 1 arguments regarding certification by May 23, 2022. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 2 7(d)(3). Because the court has denied Mr. Allaben’s motion for reconsideration, Mr. 3 Boone need not respond to the arguments regarding reconsideration. See Local Rules 4 W.D. Wash. 7(h)(3) (“No response to a motion for reconsideration shall be filed unless 5 requested by the court.”). 6 Dated this 10th day of May, 2022. 7 A 8 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 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?