Garcia v. Stemilt Ag Services LLC

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 31, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00254
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 U.S. F DIL ISE TD R I IN C TT H CE O URT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jan 31, 2022

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 GILBERTO GOMEZ GARCIA, No. 2:20-cv-00254-SMJ 5 JONATHAN GOMEZ RIVERA, JOSE RODRIGUEZ LLERENAS, 6 FRANCISCO MUÑOZ MEDRANO, ORDER DENYING SANDRO VARGAS LEVYA, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 7 ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ MONROY, PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION and VICTOR FRANCISCO 8 PADILLA PLASCENCIA, as individuals and on behalf of all other 9 similarly situated persons,

10 Plaintiffs,

11 v.

12 STEMILT AG SERVICES LLC,

13 Defendant.

14 Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this 15 Court’s Order Granting Motion to Intervene, ECF No. 236. Defendant submits that 16 the Court erred in permitting Jose Rodriguez Llerenas and Francisco Muñoz 17 Medrano to intervene as class representatives to assert FLCA claims on behalf of 18 persons who worked under the August 2017 Clearance Order. Defendant’s 19 argument is premised on the contention that FLCA claims arising from the August 20 2017 Clearance Order are time-barred. Having already decided that these FLCA 1 claims relate back to the draft complaint, the Court ordered the parties to submit 2 supplemental briefing on whether these claims are timely under American Pipe &

3 Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). Having reviewed the submitted briefing, 4 the Court denies Defendant’s motion for partial reconsideration. 5 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the

6 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. 7 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “A district court may 8 properly reconsider its decision if it (1) is presented with newly discovered 9 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or

10 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. 11 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013). Courts generally disfavor motions for 12 reconsideration, and they may not be used to present new arguments or evidence

13 that could have been raised earlier. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 14 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 The Court cannot determine that it has committed clear error or that its initial 16 decision was manifestly unjust. As will be explained more thoroughly in the Court’s

17 order on Intervenor-Plaintiffs’ pending Second Motion for Class Certification, ECF 18 No. 208, the Court finds that FLCA claims arising from the August 2017 Clearance 19 Order are timely under American Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974).

20 // 1 2 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. Defendant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration of this Court’s Order

5 Granting Motion to Intervene, ECF No. 236, is DENIED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and

7 || provide copies to all counsel. 8 DATED this 31° day of January 2022. 9 yaa het to SALVADOR MENDOZACIR United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL