Balvage et al v. Ryderwood Improvement and Service Association, Inc.

Filing 221

ORDER denying 219 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 RAYMOND T. BALVAGE,
9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

CASE NO. C09-5409 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

11 RYDERWOOD IMPROVEMENT AND
SERVICE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
12
Defendant.
13
14
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt.
15
219). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of the motion and the
16
remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.
17
On November 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint against RISA
18
asserting three claims for relief, including that RISA committed acts in violation of 42
19
U.S.C. § 3617. Dkt. 169 ¶¶ 78–83 (“retaliation claim”).
20
On April 18, 2013, RISA filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’
21
retaliation claim. Dkt. 186. On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the motion in part and
22

ORDER - 1

1 denied it in part. Dkt. 207. On June 10, 2013, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for
2 reconsideration. Dkt. 219.
3

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such

4 motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of
5 new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier
6 with reasonable diligence. Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
7

In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden for reconsideration.

8 Plaintiffs seek reconsideration based on “new material that was not provided to the Court
9 in connection with the prior motion for summary judgment.” Dkt. 219 at 2. The new
10 material is Plaintiffs’ prior state court class action complaint and allegations in that
11 complaint that Defendant had engaged in retaliatory action prior to the filing of that
12 complaint. Id. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to show that this information could not
13 have been brought to the Court’s attention with reasonable diligence. Therefore, the
14 Court denies the motion for reconsideration.
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

Dated this 10th day of June, 2013.

A

17
18

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2