Richardson v. Government Employees Insurance Company

Filing 17

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 CHRISTINE RICHARDSON,
9

Plaintiff,

10

CASE NO. C13-5855 BHS
ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

11 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE COMPANY,
12
Defendant.
13
14
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Government Employees
15
Insurance Company’s (“GEICO”) motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 15). The Court has
16
considered the pleadings filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and
17
hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.
18
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
19
On October 2, 2013, Richardson filed a motion to remand. Dkt. 6. On October
20
21, 2013, GEICO responded. Dkt. 8. On October 25, 2013, Richardson replied. Dkt. 9.
21
On November 1, 2013, GEICO filed a surreply (Dkt. 10) and the Declaration of Fiona
22

ORDER - 1

1 Hunt (“Hunt Dec.”) (Dkt. 11). On November 4, 2013, the Court requested a response to
2 GEICO’s surreply (Dkt. 12), which Richardson filed on November 8, 2013 (Dkt. 13).
3

On November 21, 2013, the Court granted Richardson’s motion. Dkt. 14. On

4 December 3, 2013, GEICO filed a motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 15) and the
5 Declaration of Erica Lawrence (Dkt. 16).
6
7

II. DISCUSSION
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides

8 as follows:
9
10

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.

11
Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
12
In this case, GEICO moves for reconsideration on both grounds. First, GEICO
13
contends that Ms. Hunt’s declaration is sufficient to meet its burden to establish
14
jurisdiction. GEICO asserts that
15
16
17

Ms. Hunt’s declaration states that the Summons and Complaint accurately
shows a stamp indicating that GEICO received a copy of the Summons and
Complaint on August 30, 2013, and that this stamp reflects the first date of
service upon GEICO.

18 Dkt. 15 at 2–3. Ms. Hunt’s knowledge, however, was based on GEICO’s policy and
19 procedure to immediately open and stamp mail. Hunt Dec., ¶ 5. The Court rejected this
20 general statement evidence as sufficient to meet GEICO’s burden, and the Court finds
21 that this was not manifest error.
22

ORDER - 2

1

With regard to GEICO’s other ground, the new evidence could have been brought

2 to the Court’s attention with reasonable diligence. GEICO has failed to make any
3 showing that it could not have obtained this evidence and have timely submitted it with
4 either its response or its improper surreply. It would be fundamentally unfair to give
5 GEICO a third bite at the apple to meet its burden.
6
7

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that GEICO’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

8 15) is DENIED.
9

Dated this 9th day of December, 2013.

A

10
11

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3