Carlson v. City of Redmond

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 SCOTT CARLSON et al., CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01739 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S v. NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL 10 AUTHORITY CITY OF REDMOND; DOES 1-50, 11 Defendants. 12

13 Plaintiffs object to and move to strike Defendant City of Redmond’s Notice of 14 Supplemental Authority about the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Petersen v. 15 Snohomish Regional Fire and Rescue, No. 24–1044, __ F.4th __ (9th Cir. 2025) (slip 16 op.), arguing the notice “violates Nichols v. Harris, 17 F. Supp. 3d 989, 996 fn.3 17 (C.D. Cal. 2014), by arguing that the cases are factually similar and stating how 18 they are allegedly similar.” Dkt. No. 151 at 1. 19 Plaintiffs’ motion fails for several reasons. First, their reliance on Nichols is 20 misplaced. District court orders carry no precedential weight and are not binding on 21 this Court. More significantly, the Nichols order they cite was vacated, albeit on 22 different grounds, by the Ninth Circuit in Nichols v. Newsom, No. 14-55873, 2022 23 1 WL 4295404 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2022). Plaintiffs’ reliance on a vacated district court

9 order greatly undermines their position. 3 Second, Defendant’s Notice of Supplemental Authority complies with Local

4 Civil Rule 7(n). The notice properly identifies relevant authority without

5 |/impermissible argument. Plaintiffs’ characterization of the notice as argumentative G is simply wrong. 7 Third, and most problematically, Plaintiffs have committed the very violation

8 they falsely accuse Defendant of committing. By filing nine numbered paragraphs 9 distinguishing Petersen and arguing why it does not affect this case, Plaintiffs have

19 || filed what amounts to an unauthorized brief on the merits. LCR 7(n) provides no

11 mechanism for opposing a notice of supplemental authority, yet Plaintiffs have done

12 exactly what they wrongly accuse Defendant of doing—arguing their position 13 outside the proper briefing schedule.

14 This procedural gamesmanship is inappropriate. Parties cannot manufacture

15 || baseless objections to justify filing additional substantive briefs beyond the Court’s

16 established briefing schedule and local rules. The motion borders on frivolous and

17 || wastes judicial resources. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike is thus DENIED. Dkt No. 151.

18 Dated this 9th day of September, 2025.

fae 20 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF