Supanich v. Rundle et al

Filing 69

ORDER denying 67 Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

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 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's "Motion for a New Trial" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. [Dkt. #67]. The Motion was filed November 22, 2010, and in fact seeks Reconsideration of the Court's Order Granting the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, dated October 26, 2010 [Dkt. #66]. Under Local Rule 7, Motions for Reconsideration are to be filed within ten judicial days of the Order at issue. The Motion is therefore untimely. Additionally, Motions for vs. KEVIN RUNDLE and JANE DOE RUNDLE, and their marital community; SANDY PEDIGO, a single woman; KATHRYN NELSON and JOHN DOE NELSON, and their marital community; JULIA KAY and JOHN DOE KAY and their marital community; DOES 1-100, unknown individuals, Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA MARK SUPANICH, a single man individually and as guardian for S.S., a minor child, Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. C10-5008RBL ORDER

Reconsideration are disfavored, and will ordinarily be denied absent a showing of manifest
ORDER - 1

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

error, or a new factual or legal basis which could not have been raised earlier. Local Rule 7(h). This standard has not been met in this case, and the Court will not reconsider its prior ruling [Dkt. #66]. It is ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for a New Trial [Dkt. #67] is DENIED. Dated 1st day of December, 2010.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER - 2