Ju v. Lacombe et al

Filing 97

ORDER denying 96 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. 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
9
10
11
12
13
14

CASE NO. 18-cv-5309 BHS

FRANCES DU JU,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

MAURICE LACOMBE, AIRBNB,
INC., STATE OF WASHINGTON, and
JOHN DOE/JANE DOE EMPLOYEES
OF THE COURT OF APPEALS,
DIVISION II

15

Defendants.

16
17

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Frances Du Ju’s (“Ju”) motion for

18

reconsideration. Dkt. 96. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and

19

in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for

20

the reasons stated herein.

21
22

ORDER - 1

1
2

I.

BACKGROUND

On April 20, 2018, Ju filed a complaint asserting numerous causes of action

3

against Defendants the State of Washington and John/Jane Doe Employees of the Court

4

of Appeals, Division II (collectively referenced in prior orders and hereinafter as the

5

“State Defendants”), Maurice Lacombe (“Lacombe”), and Airbnb, Inc. (“Airbnb”). Dkt.

6

1. Ju’s claims involve a landlord-tenant dispute with Lacombe regarding a room she

7

rented from him through Airbnb’s rental platform and subsequent judicial actions arising

8

from that dispute. Id.

9

On December 5, 2018, the Court issued an order granting a motion to dismiss

10

based on judicial and sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction brought

11

by the State Defendants. Dkt. 54. The Court concluded that any amendment of Ju’s

12

claims against the State Defendants was futile because she attempted a de facto appeal

13

of state court decisions prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Id. The Court

14

dismissed the claims against the State Defendants with prejudice. Id. at 13.

15

On October 18, 2019, the Court issued an order disposing of Ju’s remaining

16

claims by granting Lacombe’s second motion to dismiss, granting Airbnb’s motion to

17

confirm an arbitration award that dismissed all of Ju’s claims as previously settled, and

18

denying Ju’s motions to vacate the award and for entry of default against Airbnb. Dkt.

19

95. Relevant to the instant motion, the Court found that Ju’s claims against Lacombe

20

were deficient because they either (1) lacked factual specificity or a cognizable legal

21

theory, (2) attempted a de facto appeal of state judicial actions not permitted by the

22

Rooker-Feldman doctrine, or (3) failed for both reasons. Id. Regarding Airbnb, the

ORDER - 2

1

Court found that Ju failed to meet the standard to vacate an arbitration award under

2

sections 10(a)(3)–(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. The Clerk

3

entered judgment dismissing Ju’s claims against Lacombe and Airbnb with prejudice the

4

same day. Dkt. 96.

5

II. DISCUSSION

6

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will ordinarily be denied “in the

7

absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or

8

legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable

9

diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h).

10

Ju has not shown manifest error necessary to disturb the Court’s prior finding that

11

each of her claims against Lacombe lack factual specificity, lack a cognizable legal

12

theory upon which relief could be granted, and/or fail as de facto appeals challenging

13

state court decisions under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Dkt. 94 at 12–21. Nor has she

14

established that this Court committed manifest error when it affirmed the arbitrator’s

15

award in Airbnb’s favor based on the arbitrator’s finding that Ju had settled her claims

16

against Airbnb prior to arbitration. Id. at 1–12. Accordingly, the Court denies her motion

17

for reconsideration.

18

The Court also declines to consider Ju’s request to modify the judgment to

19

“include the service fees of $48 for Airbnb and $55.10 for Mr. Lacombe” pursuant to

20

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). Dkt. 96 at 7. This request for relief is improperly raised in a

21

motion for reconsideration. Even if it were not, Lacombe filed a waiver of service, Dkt.

22

49, and therefore the Court declines to award Ju costs predicated on his failure to do so.

ORDER - 3

1
2
3
4

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Ju’s motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 96,
is DENIED.
Dated this 5th day of November, 2019.

A

5
6

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 4