HTP Inc v. First Merit Group Holdings Inc

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 HTP, INC., CASE NO. C21-0732-JCC 10 Plaintiff, MINUTE ORDER 11 v. 12 FIRST MERIT GROUP HOLDINGS, INC., et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C. 16 Coughenour, United States District Judge: 17 On December 22, 2021, the Court entered an order dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s 18 tort-based claims due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its request for a declaratory 19 judgment based on a lack of a justiciable controversy. (See Dkt. No. 64 at 4.) Plaintiff now 20 moves to alter or amend the judgment under Rule 59(e), asserting the discovery of new evidence 21 and a need to prevent manifest injustice. (Dkt. No. 66 at 6–10). 22 A Rule 59(e) motion may be granted if needed to (1) correct “manifest errors of law or 23 fact” on which the judgment rests, (2) present newly discovered or previously unavailable 24 evidence, (3) to prevent manifest injustice, or (4) amend the judgment due to “an intervening 25 change in controlling law.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011). 26 1 Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion satisfies none of these criteria. There is no manifest error or 2 injustice, because Plaintiff’s legal theories are still deficient for the same reasons the Court 3 described in its prior order. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 64, 66.) Plaintiff also relies on evidence that 4 is not newly discovered. (See Dkt. No. 68 at 5, 7–9.) 5 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Rule 59(e) motion (Dkt. No. 66). 6 7 DATED this 7th day of February 2022. Ravi Subramanian 8 Clerk of Court 9 s/Sandra Rawski 10 Deputy Clerk 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26