Keith L. Closson v. Cheryl Strange

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 22, 2025
• Docket: 3:24-cv-05895
• Status: Unknown

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 KEITH L. CLOSSON, CASE NO. C24-5895-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 CHERYL STRANGE, 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 16 34) of the Court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing 17 Plaintiff’s complaint, (see Dkt. No. 32). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the 18 relevant record, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons explained herein. 19 A motion for reconsideration is generally disfavored. LCR 7(h)(1). It is only appropriate 20 where there is “manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority 21 which could not have been brought to [the Court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” 22 Id. As this Court has frequently indicated, reconsideration should not be used to ask it to “rethink 23 what it had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Wilcox v. Hamilton Constr., LLC, 426 24 F. Supp. 3d 788, 791 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (cleaned up); see, e.g., Brown v. Murphy, 2023 WL 25 6481566, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2023); Hoffman v. Transworld Sys. Inc., 2019 WL 109437, 26 slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2019). Rather, it is limited to manifest error or new facts or legal 1 authority. LCR 7(h)(1). Plaintiff’s motion, (see Dkt. No. 34), fails to demonstrate either manifest 2 error or new facts or legal authority that would allow his case to continue. (See Dkt. No. 41) 3 (Defendant’s response brief, the analysis of which the Court incorporates as its own). 4 For this reason, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 34) is DENIED. 5 6 DATED this 22nd day of October 2025. A 7 8 9 John C. Coughenour 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26