Duplessis v. Golden State Foods Inc et al
Filing
61
ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDERS OF APRIL 16, 2007, re 60 MOTION for Reconsideration. It is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration and Modification of the Court's Summary Judgment Orders of April 16, 2007 (Dkt. 60) is CONVERTED to a Motion for Summary Judgment and is RE-NOTED for consideration on May 11, 2007. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)
Duplessis v. Golden State Foods Inc et al
Doc. 61
Case 3:06-cv-05631-RJB
Document 61
Filed 04/19/2007
Page 1 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration and v. GOLDEN STATE FOODS, a Delaware Corporation doing business in Washington State; DANIEL VAN HOOZER, individually, and JANE DOE VAN HOOZER, individually, and the marital community composed thereof UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA BERNELL DUPLESSIS, individually, Plaintiff, CASE NO. C06-5631RJB ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFICATION OF THE COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDERS OF APRIL 16, 2007
19 Modification of the Court's Summary Judgment Orders of April 16, 2007 (Dkt. 60). The Court 20 has considered the motion and the remainder of the file herein. 21 22 I. BACKGROUND On April 16, 2007, the Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment but
23 did not dismiss the plaintiff's claims for assault and battery. Dkt. 59 at 18 ("The defendants' briefs 24 do not address the plaintiffs' assault and battery claims. These are therefore the only claims 25 remaining for trial."). The defendants move for reconsideration on the grounds that their motions 26 sought dismissal of all claims. Dkt. 60 at 1. The defendants contend that they "established through 27 [their] extensive briefing and citations to Plaintiff's deposition that Plaintiff has no factual support 28
ORDER Page 1
Dockets.Justia.com
Case 3:06-cv-05631-RJB
Document 61
Filed 04/19/2007
Page 2 of 3
1 for his claims of assault and battery." Dkt. 60 at 1-2. The defendants do not cite the portions of 2 their briefs establishing that the plaintiff's assault and battery claims are without merit. 3 4 5 6 7 II. DISCUSSION The burden on a motion for reconsideration is high: Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
8 Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). The defendants offer new argument and authority regarding the assault 9 and battery claims and ask the Court to "convert this motion [for reconsideration] to Defendants 10 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Assault and Battery Claims" if "the Court 11 determines that Defendants' request is not properly the subject of a motion for reconsideration." 12 Dkt. 60 at 2 n.1. Reconsideration is not appropriate here, but following the defendants' 13 suggestion will allow the Court to consider the merits of the parties' positions, and will allow a 14 due process opportunity to brief and respond to the issue of whether the plaintiff has viable claims 15 for assault and battery. 16 17 18 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration and Modification of the Court's II. ORDER
19 Summary Judgment Orders of April 16, 2007 (Dkt. 60) is CONVERTED to a Motion for 20 Summary Judgment and is RE-NOTED for consideration on May 11, 2007. Pleadings may be 21 filed in accordance with the Local Rules. 22 The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel
23 of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party's last known address. 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER Page 2
Case 3:06-cv-05631-RJB
Document 61
Filed 04/19/2007
Page 3 of 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER Page 3
Dated this 19th day of April, 2007.
A
Robert J. Bryan United States District Judge
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?