Rawson v. Recovery Innovations, Inc et al

Filing 170

ORDER Denying 162 Motion for Reconsideration. 162 Motion for Certification is re-noted for 5/24/2019. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

CASE NO. C17-5342 BHS

KENNETH RAWSON,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
RECOVERY INNOVATIONS, INC., et
al,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND
RENOTING MOTION FOR
CERTIFICATION

11
Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

This matter comes before the Court on motion for reconsideration or, in the
alternative, for certification. Dkt. 162.
On May 2 and 9, 2019, the Court issued orders denying Plaintiff Kenneth
Rawson’s (“Rawson”) motion for partial summary judgment and granting Defendants
Jennifer Clingenpeel, Sami French, Vasant Halarnakar, and Recovery Innovations, Inc.’s
(“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment. Dkts. 157, 160. On May 10, 2019,
Rawson filed a motion for reconsideration on the issue of whether Defendants were
acting under color of law. Dkt. 162. The Court finds that this issue has been thoroughly
briefed, considered, and analyzed. While it is possible that at least two members of the

22

ORDER - 1

1

reviewing panel may disagree with the Court’s conclusion and either vacate or reverse

2

the orders, Rawson has failed to establish that the Court committed manifest error. This

3

is a close question in an unrefined area of law. The Court recognizes that the state’s

4

delegation to private parties the power to restrain a person’s liberty against his or her will

5

seems to convey state action. The existing precedent, however, requires a level of

6

interaction beyond what Rawson established. Therefore, the Court denies Rawson’s

7

motion for reconsideration.

8
9

Regarding the motion for certification, the Court finds the impending trial date
warrants an expedited briefing schedule. Therefore, the Clerk shall renote that portion of

10

this motion for consideration on the Court’s May 24, 2019, calendar. Defendants may

11

respond no later than May 21, 2019, and Rawson may reply no later than May 24, 2019.

12

Finally, Rawson raises the issue of the Court declining supplemental jurisdiction.

13

Dkt. 162 at 14. If the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction, then the proper procedure

14

would be to dismiss Rawson’s state law claims without prejudice and enter an appealable

15

judgment on the federal claims. The Court did not address the issue in the previous

16

orders on the assumption that Rawson preferred federal court because he originally filed

17

all his claims here. However, if the parties filed a stipulated motion to decline

18

supplemental jurisdiction, the Court would of course consider it.

19

Dated this 14th day of May, 2019.

A

20
21

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

22

ORDER - 2