Christianson v. The Boeing Company

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

5 STAN CHRISTIANSON, individually, Case No. C20-1349RSM

6 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 7 v. 8 THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware 9 Company with its headquarters in Illinois 10 doing business in the state of Washington,

11 Defendant.

12 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored.” LCR 7(h)(1). Motions for 13 reconsideration of orders denying motions for reconsideration are even more disfavored. 14 Plaintiff Christianson has filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration arguing the Court 15 16 “has continued to fail to properly apply the authority outlined in Gambini v. Total Renal Care, 17 Inc., 480 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2007) and Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128 18 (9th Cir. 2001).” Dkt. #38 at 1. 19 “The court will ordinarily deny [motions for reconsideration] in the absence of a 20 showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which 21 22 could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. “The motion 23 shall point out with specificity the matters which the movant believes were overlooked or 24 misapprehended by the court, any new matters being brought to the court’s attention for the first 25 time, and the particular modifications being sought in the court’s prior ruling.” LCR 7(h)(2). 26 27 No response to a motion for reconsideration shall be filed unless requested by the court. LCR 28 7(h)(3). Plaintiff fails to bring new facts or legal authority to the Court’s attention. Instead, he 1 2 relitigates points previously made in response to summary judgment and in his first Motion for 3 Reconsideration. 4 This Second Motion for Reconsideration is procedurally improper. Plaintiff is not trying 5 to point out “matters which the movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the 6 court.” Instead, Plaintiff is asking the Court to overrule itself. The Court declines to do so. 7 8 The Court will clarify holdings at the request of a party if there is genuine confusion. 9 Plaintiff should not be confused by how these two cases apply to the facts as stated in Court’s 10 Order denying his Motion for Reconsideration. The Court found “[w]ithout further information 11 from Plaintiff, Boeing was repeatedly in the dark as to why he was not showing up for work on 12 13 any given day and why he was not communicating with Boeing. This case is therefore 14 distinguishable from Gambini and Humphrey.” Dkt. #37 at 2–3. Plaintiff failed to show at the 15 summary judgment stage that he was discharged under circumstances that raise a reasonable 16 inference of unlawful discrimination, or that Boeing’s reason for discharge was pretext for 17 discrimination. The discharge was clearly initiated after a policy violation that would typically 18 19 result in discharge in any employment setting, and Boeing had a legitimate nondiscriminatory 20 reason for termination. The unique facts of this case warrant summary judgment dismissal. 21 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 22 finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt #38, is DENIED. 23 DATED this 10th day of June, 2022. 24

25 A 26

28 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE