Freeze v. Gallagher

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 ERIC STEPHEN FREEZE, CASE NO. C23-1135JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 ELIZABETH E. GALLAGHER, et 13 al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Eric Stephen Freeze’s motion for 16 reconsideration of the court’s August 9, 2024 order granting Defendants Elizabeth E. 17 Gallagher, Ann G. Freeze Revocable Trust, Ronald L. Freeze Revocable Trust, James 18 Massingale, and Angela Massingale’s motion to dismiss and Defendant Jose T. Acuna’s 19 joinder therein. (MFR (Dkt. # 86); 8/9/24 Order (Dkt. # 84).) 20 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” and the court “will ordinarily deny 21 such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a 22 1 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention 2 earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1); see also id.

3 LCR 7(h)(2) (requiring the motion to “point out with specificity the matters which the 4 movant believes were overlooked or misapprehended by the court” and “any new matters 5 being brought to the court’s attention for the first time”). “Reconsideration is an 6 extraordinary remedy,” and the moving party bears a “heavy burden.” Kona Enters., Inc. 7 v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Having closely reviewed Mr. 8 Freeze’s motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the governing law, the court

9 concludes that Mr. Freeze has not met his burden to demonstrate that reconsideration of 10 the August 9, 2024 order is justified. Therefore, the court DENIES Mr. Freeze’s motion 11 for reconsideration (Dkt. # 86).1 12 Dated this 23rd day of August, 2024. 13 A 14 15 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20

1 To the extent Mr. Freeze’s motion for reconsideration should be construed as a motion 21 for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), the court further concludes that Mr. Freeze has not satisfied any of the requirements for granting such relief set 22 forth in that rule. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).