Krueger v. Alaska Airlines Inc

Filing 29

ORDER denying Defendant's #20 MOTION for Reconsideration re #19 Order on Motion to Remand. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (SS)

Download PDF
Case 2:22-cv-01777-JCC Document 29 Filed 04/19/23 Page 1 of 3 THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 CRYSTAL KRUEGER, an individual on behalf of herself and other similarly situated 11 12 13 v. CASE NO. C22-1777-JCC ORDER Plaintiff, ALASKA AIRLINES, INC., 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 20) of this Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand (“Order”) (Dkt. No. 21). Having thoroughly considered the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the reconsideration motion for the reasons explained herein. Defendant filed a notice of removal to federal court on December 15, 2022. (Dkt. No. 1.) The notice of removal asserted jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). (Id.) Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing that this Court lacked CAFA jurisdiction and, in the alternative, that an exception applied. (Dkt. No 10.) She also requested jurisdictional discovery. (Id. at 19.) This Court denied the motion to remand and found that no citizenshipbased exception applied. (See generally Dkt. No. 21.) It also denied the request for jurisdictional ORDER C22-1777-JCC PAGE - 1 Case 2:22-cv-01777-JCC Document 29 Filed 04/19/23 Page 2 of 3 1 discovery. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to reconsider. (Dkt No. 20.) 2 Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. LCR 7(h)(1). Reconsideration is 3 only appropriate where there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or 4 legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with 5 reasonable diligence.” Id. “A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask the court to 6 rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Ma v. Univ. of S. 7 California, 2019 WL 1239269, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019). 8 9 First, Plaintiff argues the Court committed manifest error by disregarding Ninth Circuit precedent when it relied on Defendant’s estimation that class members worked an average of one 10 meal and one rest break eligible shift each week. (Dkt. No. 20 at 2.) Plaintiff misstates the 11 precedent she claims the Court disregarded. Harris stands for the proposition that reasonable 12 assumptions, supported by evidence, are sufficient to meet the preponderance standard in a 13 removal action. Harris v. KM Indus., Inc., 980 F.3d 694, 701 (9th Cir. 2020) (“The district court 14 should weight the reasonableness of the removing party’s assumptions . . . [the removing party 15 did not meet its burden] because it relied on assumptions regarding the Meal Period and Rest 16 Period subclass that were unreasonable.”). Defendant was not required to provide “actual 17 evidence” to rebut Plaintiff’s arguments as Plaintiff asserts, as long as Defendant’s estimations 18 were reasonable, and thus the Court did not err. (Dkt. No. 20 at 2.) 19 Second, Plaintiff argues the Court erred when it accepted Defendant’s class size 20 calculation because Defendant misinterpreted the proposed class definition. (See Dkt. No. 20 at 21 3.) Plaintiff does not argue that the Court disregarded controlling precedent, nor does she provide 22 new facts or legal authority. 1 Plaintiff’s disagreement merely rehashes prior arguments. (See id.) 23 As such, it is not a proper challenge for purposes of a motion for reconsideration. 24 25 26 Third, Plaintiff argues the Court erred when it concluded that she failed to meet her 1 The proposed class definition Plaintiff emphasized in her motion is not new information and has been available to the Court since Defendant filed the notice of removal. (Dkt. No. 1-2.) ORDER C22-1777-JCC PAGE - 2 Case 2:22-cv-01777-JCC Document 29 Filed 04/19/23 Page 3 of 3 1 citizenship burden. (Dkt. No. 20 at 3.) Plaintiff argues this error is based on another flawed 2 interpretation of the class definition that allows the Court to consider flight attendants who are 3 part of the commuter travel program. (See id. at 3–4.) However, the Court’s consideration of 4 commuting flight attendants in its citizenship analysis was not error, let alone a manifest one. 5 First, there is no language in the class definition that expressly excludes flight attendants who use 6 non-revenue commuter travel. (See Dkt. No. 1-2 at 5–6.) Second, flight attendants must certify 7 that they live in another city to qualify for commuter travel, not another state. (Dkt. Nos. 15 at 8 24; 17-2 at 2.) Accordingly, flight attendants could certify that they live in Washington and still 9 qualify for the commuter travel program. 10 Fourth, Plaintiff claims that the Court did not review the entire record before determining 11 whether residency evidence can establish citizenship. (Dkt. No. 20) (citing Mondragon v. Capitol 12 One Auto Fin., 736 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2013)). In its order, the Court reviewed and 13 incorporated the entire factual record before concluding that Plaintiff’s evidence only established 14 residency, not citizenship. (Dkt. No. 21 at 5.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s claim is baseless. 15 Lastly, Plaintiff contends that the Court erred when it did not permit jurisdictional 16 discovery. In reasserting her jurisdictional discovery request, Plaintiff does not present any new 17 authority that suggests the Court made a manifest error in its decision to deny jurisdictional 18 discovery. (See Dkt. No 20 at 4–7.) 19 20 21 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 20) is DENIED. DATED this 19th day of April 2023. A 22 23 24 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 ORDER C22-1777-JCC PAGE - 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?