Galekovich v. City of Vancouver et al

Filing 114

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 99 Motion for Default; denying 100 Motion for Default; denying 101 Motion for Default; denying 104 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 105 Motion; granting 106 Motion to Withdraw Document.(TG; cc mailed to plaintiff)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

2
3
4

HARRY GALEKOVICH,

5

Plaintiff,

6

v.

7 CITY OF VANCOUVER, et al.,
8

CASE NO. C11-5736BHS
ORDER ON VARIOUS MOTIONS
AND DISMISSING CLAIMS
AGAINST REMAINING
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS

Defendants.

9
10

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Harry Galekovich’s

11 (“Galekovich”) motions for entry of default (Dkts. 99, 100, & 101), motion to rule that
12 service to Defendants was proper (Dkt. 105), motion to withdraw motion to dismiss
13 federal and state claims (Dkt. 106) and motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 104).
14

First, the Court will address the issue of service on the individual Defendants. On

15 March 8, 2012, the Court issued an order that included a requirement that Galekovich
16 show proof that he had properly served Defendants in this action or face dismissal of the
17 lawsuit. See Dkt. 81. Galekovich has failed to provide proof of proper service under
18 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within 120 days of filing his complaint or
19 otherwise show why his claims against those he has failed to serve should not be
20 dismissed. Accordingly, the claims alleged against the individual Defendants in this
21 action are dismissed and Galekovich’s motions for entry of default (Dkts. 99, 100, &
22 101) and motion to rule that service to Defendants was proper (Dkt. 105) are denied.

ORDER - 1

1

Next, Galekovich filed a motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 104) of the Court’s

2 order (Dkt. 81) signed March 8, 2012. Motions for reconsideration must be brought
3 within fourteen days of the order they seek to have reconsidered. See Local Rule 7(h)(2).
4 Accordingly, Galekovich’s motion for reconsideration, which was filed several months
5 after the order it seeks to have reconsidered, is denied as untimely.
6

Finally, Galekovich seeks to withdraw his earlier filed motion to dismiss federal

7 and state claims (Dkt. 83). On April 26, 2012, the Court terminated Galekovich’s motion
8 to dismiss his federal and state claims until after mediation between the parties took
9 place. Accordingly, because Galekovich now seeks to have that motion withdrawn, Dkt.
10 83 will remain terminated permanently and Galekovich’s motion to withdraw (Dkt. 106)
11 is granted.
12

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED Galekovich’s motion to withdraw (Dkt. 106) is

13 GRANTED to the extent that his motion to dismiss (Dkt. 83) will remain terminated
14 permanently, his motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 104) is DENIED, his motions for entry
15 of default (Dkts. 99, 100, & 101) and motion to rule that service to Defendants was
16 proper (Dkt. 105) are DENIED, and his claims against the remaining individual
17 Defendants are DISMISSED, as discussed above.
18

Dated this 12th day of September, 2012

A

19
20

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 2