Marshall v. Washington State Bar Association et al

Filing 112

ORDER denying 111 Motion for Reconsideration by Samuel Conti.(TD)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7

AT SEATTLE

8
9

BRADLEY MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,

For the Western District of Washington

United States District Court

10
11
12
13
14

v.
WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION,
et al.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV-11-5319 SC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION REGARDING
SANCTIONS AND STAY PENDING
APPEAL

16
17

On November 30, 2012, the Court issued an order denying

18

Plaintiff Bradley Marshall's motion for leave to proceed with an

19

adversary complaint against Defendant Washington State Bar

20

Association ("WSBA") in bankruptcy court and sanctioned Mr.

21

Marshall for unreasonably multiplying proceedings pursuant to 28

22

U.S.C. § 1927.

23

that Mr. Marshall's adversary complaint fell within the scope of

24

the Court's May 23, 2012 Pre-Filing Order ("May 23 Order") and that

25

the adversary complaint raised arguments which had been rejected by

26

numerous courts in similar collateral attacks filed by Mr. Marshall

27

in the last several years.

28

to reconsider the November 30 Order and to stay the award of

ECF No. 100 ("Nov. 30 Order").

Id.

The Court found

Mr. Marshall now moves the Court

1

sanctions as well as his bankruptcy proceedings pending his appeal

2

of the Court's May 23 Order.

ECF No. 111 ("Mot.").

3

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and are ordinarily

4

denied "in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior

5

ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not

6

have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with

7

reasonable diligence."

8

failed to show any manifest error.

9

does not challenge the Court's finding that his adversary complaint

Civ. Local Rule 7(h)(1).

Mr. Marshall has

Indeed, Mr. Marshall's motion

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

merely repeats arguments that were rejected in past collateral

11

attacks.

12

authority which could not have been cited earlier.

13

Mr. Marshall's motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

14

Nor does the motion point to any new facts or legal
Accordingly,

The Court also declines to stay the bankruptcy proceedings and

15

the award of sanctions.

Mr. Marshall has offered no authority or

16

explanation as to why such a stay would be necessary or

17

appropriate.

18

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Marshall's motion for

19

reconsideration and request to stay pending appeal are DENIED.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: December 10, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

2