Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.

W.D. Washington

Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided August 20, 2019·No. 2:17-cv-00814·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., CASE NO. C17-0814JLR Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION v. FOR PARTIAL AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, et al., Defendant. Before the court is Defendant Amazon Fulfillment Services’ (“AFS”) motion for partial reconsideration. (Mot. (Dkt. # 222).) For the reasons stated below, the motion is Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and the court ordinarily will deny such motions unless the moving party shows (a) manifest error in the prior ruling, or (b) new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Local Rules W.D. AFS presents no new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. (See generally Mot.) Instead, AFS

asserts that the court committed manifest error by overlooking certain evidence in its order on the parties’ motions for partial summary judgment (8/1/2019 Order (Dkt. # 214)). (See Mot. at 1.) AFS’s motion consists primarily of arguments it already presented in its summary judgment briefing that rely on evidence the court addressed at length in its August 1, 2019 order. AFS’s disagreements with the court’s analysis of that evidence do not

establish manifest error. See, e.g., Russell v. Comcast Corp., No. C08-0309TSZ, 2009 WL 995720, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 13, 2009) (“Plaintiff’s motion is denied because, for the most part it simply rehashes arguments already made and rejected by the Court, and otherwise fails to establish that the Court committed a manifest error of law or fact.”) (citing Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978)).

Because AFS has not made a showing of manifest error in the court’s prior ruling or brought to the court’s attention any new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence, the court DENIES AFS’s motion for partial reconsideration (Dkt. # 222). Dated this 20th day of August, 2019.

A United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., CASE NO. C17-0814JLR Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION v. FOR PARTIAL AMAZON FULFILLMENT SERVICES, et al., Defendant. Before the court is Defendant Amazon Fulfillment Services’ (“AFS”) motion for partial reconsideration. (Mot. (Dkt. # 222).) For the reasons stated below, the motion is Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and the court ordinarily will deny such motions unless the moving party shows (a) manifest error in the prior ruling, or (b) new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. Local Rules W.D. AFS presents no new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. (See generally Mot.) Instead, AFS

asserts that the court committed manifest error by overlooking certain evidence in its order on the parties’ motions for partial summary judgment (8/1/2019 Order (Dkt. # 214)). (See Mot. at 1.) AFS’s motion consists primarily of arguments it already presented in its summary judgment briefing that rely on evidence the court addressed at length in its August 1, 2019 order. AFS’s disagreements with the court’s analysis of that evidence do not

establish manifest error. See, e.g., Russell v. Comcast Corp., No. C08-0309TSZ, 2009 WL 995720, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 13, 2009) (“Plaintiff’s motion is denied because, for the most part it simply rehashes arguments already made and rejected by the Court, and otherwise fails to establish that the Court committed a manifest error of law or fact.”) (citing Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978)).

Because AFS has not made a showing of manifest error in the court’s prior ruling or brought to the court’s attention any new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence, the court DENIES AFS’s motion for partial reconsideration (Dkt. # 222). Dated this 20th day of August, 2019.

A United States District Judge

Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc., (W.D. Wash. 2019).

Pincite

Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc. (Central Freight Lines, Inc. v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related