Longacre v. Kitsap County et al

Filing 23

ORDER denying 15 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Ronald B. Leighton. (Copy mailed to Pltf @ Port Orchard address.)(DK)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

CLAYTON ERNEST LONGACRE,

CASE NO. C17-5900RBL

9
Plaintiff,
10
11

v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

KITSAP COUNTY,

12

Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Longacre’s Motion for Reconsideration

15

[Dkt. # 15] of the Court’s Order [Dkt. #13] granting Defendant Kitsap County’s Motion to

16

Dismiss [Dkt. #6]. Longacre claims the Court erred (1) in considering and judicially noticing

17

documents supplied with Defendants’ Reply, and (2) in dismissing his case on issue preclusion

18

grounds.

19

He claims he should have been permitted to respond if the Court considered matters

20

outside the complaint. Generally, a Court may not consider any material outside the pleadings in

21

ruling on a Rule 12 motion, or the motion is converted to one for summary judgment (and the

22

opposing party is entitled to respond to the new motion). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(6) There are

23

two exceptions to this rule. First, the Court may consider material submitted as part of the

24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

complaint, or upon which the complaint necessarily relies, if the material’s authenticity is not

2

contested. Second, under Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court may take judicial notice of “matters of

3

public record.” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001).
The Court’s reliance on matters of public record did not convert the motion to one for

4
5

summary judgment.
Longacre also disputes the preclusive effect of the prior case, which he lost. He claims

6
7

that he was required to prove there —by clear and convincing evidence—that service was

8

defective, but that he can prevail on this issue here by proving defective service by a

9

preponderance of the evidence.

10

This is not a distinction that makes a difference, and holding that it does makes no sense;

11

prevailing parties would regularly be subject to a second lawsuit seeking to undo the result of the

12

first.

13

The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 2nd day of February, 2018.

17

A

18

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

16

19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 2