San Juan Construction, Inc. v. R. Custom Excavation, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 12 Motion for Reconsideration of the 10 Judgment on Answer. The 10 Judgment is VACATED. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a status report on how they intend to proceed with this matter. The report shall be submitted no later than 3/20/15. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(CMG)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

3
4

5 SAN JUAN CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
6

Plaintiff,

7

CASE NO. MS14-5027 BHS
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

8 R. CUSTOM EXCAVATION, INC., and
UPPER HUDSON NATIONAL
9 INSURANCE GROUP,
10
11

Defendants,
M&T SECURITIES
Garnishee.

12
13
14
15
16
17

This matter comes before the Court on Garnishee M&T Securities, Inc.’s
(“M&T”) motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 12). The Court has considered the pleadings
filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and
hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY

18
19
20
21
22

On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff San Juan Construction, Inc. (“San Juan”) filed an
application for a writ of garnishment on Defendants R. Custom Excavation, Inc. and
Upper Hudson National Insurance Group (“Upper Hudson”) seeking a garnishment of
$634,016.20. Dkt. 1.

ORDER - 1

1

On November 20, 2014, a writ of garnishment was issued on M&T. Dkt. 3. On

2 December 11, 2014, M&T answered stating that it held approximately $200,000
3 belonging to at least one of the defendants. Dkt. 4.
4

On January 5, 2015, San Juan filed a motion for judgment on the answer. Dkt. 8.

5 On January 26, 2015, the Court granted the motion, entered judgment in favor of San
6 Juan, and ordered M&T to deposit $201,142.92 into the Court registry in accordance with
7 the funds of Upper Hudson. Dkt. 10.
8

On February 9, 2015, M&T filed a motion for reconsideration asserting that the

9 funds were subject to a preexisting obligation. Dkt. 12. On February 17, 2015, San Juan
10 responded. Dkt. 17. On February 20, 2015, M&T replied.
11
12

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

13 as follows:
14
15

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.

16
Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
17
In this case, M&T moves for reconsideration based on an employee’s oversight
18
that the funds are subject to a preexisting obligation. Although this is new information
19
that could have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier, the question is whether the
20
oversight could have been avoided with reasonable diligence. This is a close question,
21
but, based on the underlying merits arguments, the Court finds that the oversight should
22

ORDER - 2

1 be excused. Moreover, even if the Court denied the instant motion, M&T has set forth
2 persuasive arguments for a Rule 60 motion to vacate the judgment. It is in the best
3 interests of the parties and the Court to vacate the judgment now and proceed to the
4 merits of the preexisting obligation rather than waste additional resources on a
5 subsequent post-judgment motion. Therefore, the Court grants M&T’s motion for
6 reconsideration.
7
8

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that M&T’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

9 12) is GRANTED and the judgment (Dkt. 10) is VACATED. The parties shall meet and
10 confer and submit a status report on how they intend to proceed with this matter. The
11 report shall be submitted no later than March 20, 2015.
12

Dated this 6th day of March, 2015.

A

13
14

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3