Johnson v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corporation

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: September 20, 2019
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00337
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 BRENDA M. JOHNSON, 9

Plaintiff, 10 Case No. 19-cv-00337-RAJ v. 11 ORDER

ELECTRONIC TRANSACTION 12 CONSULTANTS CORPORATION and 13 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, 14 Defendants. 15

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and 18 Motion to Reopen Case. Dkt. # 26, 32. For the reasons below, those motions are 19 DENIED. 20 II. BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff generally alleges claims arising out of her employment with Defendants 22 and the termination of her employment in 2014. Dkt. # 14 at 2-6. Plaintiff claims that 23 Defendants breached her employment contract, were negligent, and violated her rights as 24 a whistle-blower by not paying wages properly earned or “disability” payments. Id. As 25 the Court previously explained, Plaintiff’s Complaint seems to be little more than collateral 26 attacks on prior unsuccessful attempts at litigating these claims in federal court. See, e.g., 27 Johnson v. ETCC, Case No., 14-5872-RJB; Johnson v. ETCC, Case No., 17-6009-RJB. Plaintiff similarly failed to provide the Court with any proper legal authority for her nearly 1 identical claims here. 2 On July 3, 2019, the Court entered a Minute Order requiring Plaintiff to show cause 3 no later than July 17, 2019 why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice and 4 without further notice for failure to prosecutor due to Plaintiff’s failure to provide proper 5 proof of service in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h). Dkt. # 21. Federal Rule of Civil 6 Procedure 4(h) sets forth the requirements for effectuating service of process upon a 7 corporation. On July 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed an “Affidavit of Mailing of Summons and 8 Complaint to Washington Department of Transportation” and a “Certificate of Service,” 9 and on July 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Declaration of Brenda Johnson re: Service of 10 Amended Complaint and Summons.” Dkt. # 23. Having determined that there was no 11 evidence contained in Plaintiff’s submissions that provides proof that proper service has 12 been effectuated on Defendants in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h), the Court 13 dismissed the Complaint. Dkt. # 25. 14 Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration and to reopen the case, claiming this Court 15 has shown bias and obstruction of justice by dismissing the action. Dkt. ## 26, 32. The 16 Court construes both motions as ones for reconsideration. 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 The Court has discretion to reconsider and vacate a prior order. Barber v. Hawaii, 19 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir. 1994); United States v. Nutri-cology, Inc., 982 F.2d 394, 396 20 (9th Cir. 1992). Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon 21 a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which 22 could not have been brought to [the court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” 23 Local R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1). 24 To the extent, Plaintiff alleges manifest error due to bias, that contention is 25 completely without merit. The Court is aware of no bias against Plaintiff or in favor of 26 Defendants. Furthermore, there must be a factual showing of a reasonable basis for 27 questioning the impartiality of a judge, or allegations of facts establishing other 1 disqualifying circumstances. Maier v. Orr, 758 F.2d 1578, 1583 (9th Cir. 1985); see also 2 U.S. v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that disqualification under 3 Section 455(a) is necessarily fact-driven and may turn on subtleties in the particular case). 4 “Conclusory statements and unsupported beliefs and assumptions are of no effect.” Maier, 5 758 F.2d at 1583. 6 Additionally, Plaintiff fails to present new facts that could not have been brought to 7 the Court’s attention with reasonable diligence. LCR 7(h)(1). Finding no other basis for 8 relief, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions for reconsideration. Dkt. # 26, 32. 9 10 DATED this 20th day of September, 2019. 11 A 12 13 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 14 United States District Judge 15

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27