Evanston Insurance Company v. CLARK COUNTY, WASHINGTON et al

Filing 48

ORDER re 47 MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Evanston Insurance Company. The Court requests that the City respond to the Motion within 5 days of this Order and at no more than 5 pages. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (DN)

Honorable Ronald B. Leighton

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, an )
)
Illinois corporation,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
COUNTY OF CLARK, a Washington State )
municipal corporation, WEXFORD HEALTH )
SOURCES, INC., a foreign corporation; PHI )
)
THI NGUYEN, individually and VY VIET
)
TRAN, individually and in his capacity
)
As Personal Representative of the Estate of
VUONG QUANG TRAN, deceased; GARRY )
E. LUCAS, JOSEPH K. DUNEGAN, JACKIE )
BATTIES, BILL BARRON, JACK G. HUFF, )
MICHAEL J. NAGY, ROBERT KARCHER, )
DANIEL L. CONN, NICKOLAS A. LITTLE, )
CAROL L. RANCE, KELLY E. EPPERSON, )
GLADYS C. MAYNARD, REGINALD D. )
)
LEWIS, DANIEL J. GORECKI, RITA A.
)
LAURENT, SUSAN M. BANKSTON,
)
)
Defendants.

No. 3:10-cv-05625-RBL
ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE TO
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

22
23

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Evanston’s Motion for Reconsideration

24

[Dkt. #47] of the Court’s Order [Dkt. #46] on Evanston’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt.

25

#39].

26

ORDER – 1

1

Evanston argues that Clark County was an additional insured under the policy Evanston

2

issued to Wexford “only as respects liability for Bodily Injury or Property Damage caused by the

3

negligence of the Named Insured.” It argues that the Court’s Order left open the possibility of

4

coverage only for claims against the city arising from general administrative policies, which do

5

not on their face allege liability for bodily injury caused by the negligence of the Named Insured.

6

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

7

motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or authority

8

which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. CR 7(h)(1),

9

Local Rules W.D. Wash. No motion for reconsideration will be granted unless an opposing

10

party has been afforded the opportunity to file a response. CR 7(h).

11

The Court hereby REQUESTS that the City respond to Evanston’s Motion on the above

12

issue and argument. The Response should be no more than 5 pages and should be filed within 5

13

days of the date of this Order.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 8th day of December, 2011.

16

A

17
18

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER – 2