Angulo v. Providence Health & Services Washington

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 CAROLINE ANGULO, et al., CASE NO. C22-0915JLR 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 12 PROVIDENCE HEALTH AND 13 SERVICES - WASHINGTON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 9, 17 2024 order, in which the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, granted 18 Defendant Providence Health and Services – Washington’s (“Providence”) motion to 19 strike class allegations, and granted Plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint. 20 (MFR (Dkt. # 186); see 8/9/24 Order (Dkt. # 184).) Plaintiffs ask the court to modify its 21 order to (1) defer ruling on the motion for class certification rather than deny it; and 22 1 (2) clarify that the court did not intend to end equitable tolling pursuant to American Pipe 2 & Construction Company v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974).1 (See generally MFR; see also

3 Prop. Order (Dkt. # 186-1).) They “do not ask the [c]ourt to revisit the substantive merits 4 of any matters on which it has already ruled.” (MFR at 2.) The court ordered Defendants 5 Providence, Dr. Jason A. Dreyer, D.O., Jane Doe Dreyer, Dr. Daniel Elskens, D.O., and 6 Jane Doe Elskens (together with Providence, “Defendants”) to respond to Plaintiffs’ 7 motion and granted Plaintiffs leave to file an optional reply. (8/23/23 Order (Dkt. 8 # 188)); Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(3) (providing that “[n]o response to a motion

9 for reconsideration shall be filed unless requested by the court” and “[n]o motion for 10 reconsideration will be granted without such a request”). Briefing is now complete. (See 11 MFR Resp. (Dkt. # 190); Dreyer Joinder (Dkt. # 191); Elskens Joinder (Dkt. # 192); 12 MFR Reply (Dkt. # 195).) The court has considered the parties’ submissions, the 13 relevant portions of the record, and the governing law. Being fully advised, the court

14 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration in part and CLARIFIES that it did not 15 intend its prior order to affect the tolling of the statutes of limitations for the claims of 16 Plaintiffs and absent class members. 17 // 18 //

20 1 Plaintiffs also asked the court, “to the extent that Plaintiffs [did] not file a fourth amended complaint by August 30, 2024, . . . [to] toll[] the statute of limitations under American Pipe until Thursday, October 31, 2024, to allow unnamed class members an opportunity to bring 21 individual cases and [order] that notice to those individuals be sent.” (Prop. Order (Dkt. # 186-1) at 3.) Because Plaintiffs filed a timely fourth amended complaint, the court considers this 22 request moot. (See 4th Am. Compl. (Dkt. # 189).) 2 Plaintiffs ask the court to reconsider the language in its August 9, 2024 order

3 denying their motion for class certification and granting Providence’s motion to strike 4 class allegations. (MFR at 1.) They ask the court to modify its order so that it instead 5 “‘defers’ ruling [on the motions] pending Plaintiffs’ filing of the[ir] Fourth Amended 6 Complaint.” (Id.) They seek to “avoid an unintended consequence of disrupting the 7 tolling of the statute of limitations under American Pipe pending the filing of a Fourth 8 Amended Complaint.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiffs assert it is necessary to clarify that the court

9 did not intend to end the tolling of any statutes of limitations because “there is a split in 10 the circuits as to whether a denial of a class certification motion results in the lifting of 11 the tolling of the statute of limitations implemented in American Pipe.” (Id. at 3.) 12 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” and the court “will ordinarily deny 13 such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a

14 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention 15 earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1); see also id. 16 LCR 7(h)(2) (requiring the motion to “point out with specificity the matters which the 17 movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the court” and “any new matters 18 being brought to the court’s attention for the first time”). “Reconsideration is an

19 extraordinary remedy,” and the moving party bears a “heavy burden.” Kona Enters., Inc. 20 v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 21 The court declines to modify the language of its August 9, 2024 order. Plaintiffs 22 have not met their burden to show manifest error and have not identified new facts or 1 legal authority that they could not have brought to the court earlier. Indeed, Plaintiffs do 2 not seek reconsideration of the court’s substantive rulings, and although Plaintiffs

3 presumably could have raised their concerns about American Pipe tolling in their briefing 4 on the motions for class certification and to strike class allegations, they did not do so. 5 Nevertheless, the court clarifies that it did not intend by its August 9, 2024 order 6 to abrogate any tolling that might be available under applicable tolling principles. The 7 court further clarifies its intent to deny the motion for class certification without prejudice 8 and grant Plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint to allow them an opportunity

9 to address the issues identified in the August 9, 2024 order. (See, e.g., 8/9/24 Order at 10 16-17 (granting leave to amend, “to allege, if possible, proposed class definitions that are 11 not fail safe” and proceeding to consider Rules 23(a) and (b) “to provide Plaintiffs 12 guidance as they redefine their proposed classes”).) In so clarifying, the court takes no 13 position on whether American Pipe tolling in fact applies to toll the statutes of limitations

14 for the claims of Plaintiffs and the absent class members. 16 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ motion for 17 reconsideration (Dkt. # 186) and clarifies that it did not intend its August 9, 2024 order to 18 //

19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 1 abrogate any tolling that might be available to Plaintiffs under applicable tolling 2 principles.

3 Dated this 9th day of September, 2024. 4 A 5 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19 20 21 22