Dahlstrom v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 5, 2019
• Docket: 2:16-cv-01874
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

l 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 71 RAJU T. DAHLSTROM, 8 Case No. C16-1874RSL Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S V. MOTION FOR REVISION 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al, 1 Defendants. 12 13 On April 8, 2019, the Court granted the individual defendants’ motion for 14 summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's wrongful termination in violation of public 15 policy claim on the grounds that (a) plaintiff failed to respond to defendants’ argument 16 I that a wrongful discharge claim cannot be asserted against any entity other than plaintiffs 17 employer and (b) the nature of the employment contract, the relevant case law, and the 18 narrowness of the public policy exception to the general rule of at-will employment all 19 | supported dismissal. Dkt. # 92. Plaintiff filed a timely motion for reconsideration and, in 20 II the alternative, requested certification of the issue to the Washington Supreme Court. □□□□ 21} 493. The motion was denied. Dkt. # 94. The Court found that plaintiff had offered no 22 justification for his failure to acknowledge, much less respond, to defendants’ argument 23 that a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy cannot be asserted against 24 anyone other than the employer and had not shown manifest error in the ruling. 25 Plaintiff now seeks to “revise” the April 8, 2019, summary judgment order under 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REVISION - 1

1 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b), arguing that two recent decisions warrant reconsideration. The 2 || Washington Supreme Court decision on which plaintiff relies is inapposite in that the 3 | issue of whether a wrongful discharge claim can be asserted against anyone other than the 4 || employer was not discussed. See Karstetter v. King County Corrections Guild, _ Wn.2d S || __, 2019 WL 3227311 (July 18, 2019) (Karstetter sued the Guild, the entity with which he 6 || had an employment contract). The other decision is from the United States District Court 7 || for the Eastern District of Washington. See Blackman v. Omak Sch. Dist., 2019 WL 8 || 2396569 (E.D. Wash. June 6, 2019). Chief Judge Rice’s determination that the purposes 9 || of the wrongful discharge tort would be furthered by allowing an employee to sue co- 10 || employees who were involved in the termination does not bind this Court, however. Nor 1] | does the fact that Blackman successfully raised policy and legal arguments in her lawsuit 12 || excuse plaintiffs previous failure to respond in any way to the individual defendants’ 13 |] argument that a wrongful termination claim cannot be asserted against any entity other 14 || than the employer. 15 16 The Court declines to reconsider or revise the April 8, 2019, order. Plaintiff’ s 17 || second request for certification to the Washington Supreme Court is denied. 18 19 DATED this yt day of Soph _ _, 2019. 20 Mn (SC . , / 21 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR REVISION - 2