Jackson v. The Boeing Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 LYNDON JACKSON, CASE NO. C21-654 MJP 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 12 v. 13 THE BOEING COMPANY, 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 17 53.) Having reviewed the Motion and all supporting materials, the Court DENIES the Motion. 18 In this District motions for reconsideration are disfavored. Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). “The 19 court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior 20 ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its 21 attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Id. 22 Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its Order granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 23 and dismissing the action with prejudice. (Mot. at 1.) Invoking 60(b)(1), he asks the Court to 24 1 alter the entry of final judgment to allow him to file an amended complaint on the theory that 2 there has been a “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.” (Mot. at 4.) Plaintiff 3 explains that he retained counsel in Alabama for $2,000 to assist in “finalizing his complaint” by 4 “add[ing] case law and complet[ing] claims with particularity.” (Mot. at 3.) Due to circumstances

5 that are unexplained, the attorney did not provide the assistance. (Id.) 6 “Rule 60(b)(1) of Civil Procedure provides that a court may relieve a party or a party’s 7 legal representative from a final judgment on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or 8 excusable neglect.” Bateman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2000). “[T]he 9 determination of whether neglect is excusable is an equitable one that depends on at least four 10 factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its 11 potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant 12 acted in good faith.” Id. at 1223–24 (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. 13 P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)). 14 While the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s request, it finds no grounds to reconsider its

15 Order of dismissal or to alter the entry of judgment. First, Plaintiff has not argued or shown that 16 the Court’s decision was incorrect or that it constitutes manifest error under Local Civil Rule 17 7(h). Second, Plaintiff has failed to satisfy Rule 60(b)(1). Plaintiff was given multiple 18 opportunities to file a complaint explaining the factual and legal basis for his claims. Plaintiff 19 filed his Amended Complaint and did not flag the lack of assistance of counsel as a reason to 20 allow further amendment. And although Plaintiff acted pro se, he showed that he was capable of 21 amending his complaint to add more detailed factual allegations. In opposing the Motion to 22 Dismiss, Plaintiff did not identify his counsel’s lack of assistance in drafting the amended 23 complaint and there is no indication that counsel would have assisted in opposing the Motion to

24 1 Dismiss. And in ruling on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the Court carefully considered 2 Plaintiff’s allegations in the Amended Complaint and continued to find that they failed to state a 3 claim and could not be saved through amendment. The Court is not convinced that the counsel’s 4 failure to provide assistance in drafting the Amended Complaint constitutes a “mistake,

5 inadvertence or excusable neglect” that might justify amending the judgment to allow for a 6 further amendment to the complaint. As such, the Court DENIES the Motion. 7 The Court separately notes that to the extent that the attorney Plaintiff retained failed to 8 provide legal services as agreed, Plaintiff may have legal claims against the attorney and may 9 also wish to file a complaint with the Alabama Bar Association. But such complaints are not 10 properly raised before this Court and the Court cannot consider them. 11 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to Plaintiff and all counsel. 12 Dated January 11, 2023. A 13 14 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24