Brooks-Joseph v. City of Seattle

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 TERRI BROOKS-JOSEPH, Case No. 2:22-cv-01078-RSL 9

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING 11 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION LIGHT, LOURDES PODWALL and JOHN 13 DOE PODWALL and the marital community 14 composed thereof, SUSAN DAVIDSON and JOHN DOE DAVIDSON and the marital 15 community composed thereof, BRITT LUZZI 16 and JOHN DOE LUZZI and the marital community composed thereof, SHARON 17 HUNTER and JOHN DOE HUNTER and the 18 marital community composed thereof, 19 Defendants. 20 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Order 21 Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. # 64). Defendant City of Seattle 22 filed a motion for summary judgment on August 8, 2023. Dkt. # 18. On October 5, 2023, the 23 Court granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed plaintiff’s claims. Dkt. # 62. Plaintiff 24 timely filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h)(2). Dkt. #64. 25 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only upon a 26 “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not 27 have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1). 28 1 Manifest error is “‘plain and indisputable’” and “‘amounts to a complete disregard of the 2 controlling law or the credible evidence in the record.’” Santiago v. Gage, No. 3:18-CV-05825- 3 RBL, 2020 WL 42246, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2020) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 622 4 (9th ed. 2009)). 5 Upon reviewing plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds plaintiff has not met her burden. 6 Plaintiff cannot point to manifest error. She reiterates facts and arguments she presented in her 7 initial response to defendant’s motion. Any new facts plaintiff now raises bear no relation to the 8 discriminatory claims she asserts. Therefore, plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of Order 9 Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. # 64) is DENIED. 10 12 13 DATED this 19th day of March 2024. 14

15 A 16 Robert S. Lasnik 17 United States District Judge 18

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28