Yomi v. Carlos del Toro et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 27 MOTION for Reconsideration. In light of Plaintiff's request for a stay of the case deadlines while this motion is pending (Dkt. No. 27 at 4), Plaintiff's deadline to return the service forms and service copies of the complaint (as previously instructed (Dkt. No. 26 at 3)) is extended from 11/22/2023, to 11/27/2023. Signed by District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson. (SB)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

FRANCIS WOUKOP YOMI,
v.

Plaintiff(s),

CASE NO. C23-5199-KKE
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

CARLOS DEL TORO, et al.,
Defendant(s).
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 27.
Plaintiff contends that the Court erred in denying his motion for default because Defendant’s
motion to dismiss was untimely filed. Id. But, as explained in the Court’s order (Dkt. No. 26 at
2-3), the clock has not yet started to run on Defendant’s time to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint
because service has not yet been perfected. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(2) provides that
a United States officer or employee sued in its official capacity (such as Defendant here) must
respond to a complaint within 60 days of service on the United States attorney, and Plaintiff’s
motion acknowledges that the United States attorney has not yet been served. See Dkt. No. 27 at
1-4. Plaintiff emphasizes that the summons form does not explicitly link the time to respond to
the service of the United States attorney (Dkt. No. 27), but the form does indicate that Rule 12
governs Defendant’s response obligation. See Dkt. No. 12. Plaintiff has not shown that the Court

24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1

1

erred in finding that because the United States attorney has not yet been served, Defendant’s time

2

to respond has not yet started running.

3

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate manifest error in the Court’s prior order, and his motion

4

for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 27) is therefore DENIED. See Local Civil Rule 7(h) (“The court will

5

ordinarily deny [motions for reconsideration] in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the

6

prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its

7

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”). In light of Plaintiff’s request for a stay of the case

8

deadlines while this motion is pending (Dkt. No. 27 at 4), Plaintiff’s deadline to return the service

9

forms and service copies of the complaint (as previously instructed (Dkt. No. 26 at 3)) is extended

10
11
12
13
14

from November 22, 2023, to November 27, 2023.
Dated this 13th day of November, 2023.

A
Kymberly K. Evanson
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2