Jackson v. The Aliera Companies Inc

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 JACKSON, et al. Case No.: 19-cv-01281-BJR 9 Plaintiffs,

10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 11 THE ALIERA COMPANIES, INC., et al.

12 Defendants.

13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiffs Gerald Jackson, Roslyn Jackson, Dean Mellom, Jon Perrin, and Julie Perrin 16 (“Plaintiffs”) bring this putative class action suit against Defendants Aliera Companies, Inc., its 17 now-defunct subsidiary Aliera Healthcare, Inc. (collectively “Aliera”), and Trinity HealthShare, 18 Inc. (“Trinity”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants sold them unauthorized health insurance plans 19 in violation of Washington law and engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of the 20 Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.010 et seq. 21 Currently before the Court is Jon and Julie Perrin’s (“the Perrins”) motion for 22 reconsideration of this Court’s August 18, 2020 decision ordering them to arbitrate their claims 23 and staying the proceedings as to their claims. Dkt. No. 105 (Order); Dkt. No. 110 (Motion). 1 Having reviewed the motion, the opposition thereto, the record of the case, and the relevant legal 2 authority, the Court denies the motion. The reasoning for the Court’s decision follows. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h):

5 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a 6 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. 7 Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 8 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 9 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be 10 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly 11 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 12 law.” Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 13 2009) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) 14 (alteration in original). “Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 15 reconsideration.” Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 16 2005). 17 The Perrins have not met their heavy burden. They raise no newly issued legal authority 18 or newly developed factual evidence. They simply reargue issues that were thoroughly briefed 19 and considered by the Court when it granted the Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. 20 While the Perrins believe this Court erred in reaching its decision, they have not established 21 manifest error. Disagreement with the Court’s conclusion is not a sufficient basis upon which to 22 grant a motion for reconsideration. Haw. Stevedores, 363 F. Supp. 2d at 1269. Thus, the motion 23 for reconsideration must be denied. 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY DENIES the Perrins’ motion for 3 reconsideration (Dkt. No. 110). 4 Dated this 8th day of October 2020.

5 A 6 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein 7 U.S. District Court Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23