Carey v. International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local 612 et al

Filing 20

ORDER denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8
9

12

ORDER

Plaintiff,

10
11

No. 12-cv-5025 RBL

Suzanne Carey,

[Dkt. #19]

v.
International Union of Operating Engineers
(IUOE) Local 612; Ernie Evans; Ed Taylor,

13

Defendants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Ms. Carey has moved for reconsideration of the Court’s order dismissing her Complaint
under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). (Order, Dkt. #17.) Ms. Carey’s claims are barred by res judicata.
In short, she has been frivolously suing her former employer for approximately eight years under
various theories. Id. at 2.
Under Local Rule 7(h):
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions
in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts
or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with
reasonable diligence.

23

The Ninth Circuit has called reconsideration an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in

24

the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of

25

Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s

26

Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000). “Indeed, a motion for reconsideration should not be

27

granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly

28

Order - 1

1

discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling

2

law.” Id. (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

3

Here, Ms. Carey asserts that “it was Judge Bryan’s idea for this case to be dismissed,”

4

and that “Judge Leighton called a local criminal attorney to ask him to come to the Courthouse

5

and help him write the Dismissal Order.” (Pl.’s Mot. for Reconsideration at 1.) Further, Ms.

6

Carey asserts that contrary to principle of res judicata, “Plaintiff’s and their counsels [sic] really

7

do get to keep trying until they win.” (Pl.’s Mot. for Reconsideration at 3.)

8
9

Plaintiff does not get to keep trying until she wins. Her claims are spectacularly
frivolous, and thus, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

10
11
12
13
14
15

Dated this 20th day of June 2012.

A
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Order - 2