Lee v. The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago

Opinion

1 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Jun 21, 2022 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 YUKI LEE, in her capacity as personal 9 representative of the Estate of her No. 2:19-CV-00326-SAB 10 deceased husband, JOOCHAN LEE, 11 individually and Decedent’s surviving ORDER DENYING 12 wife, and in her capacity as Guardian of DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 13 their minor daughter, A.L. both as RECONSIDERATION; 14 beneficiaries and heirs of Decedent’s DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 15 estate, MOTION TO AMEND 16 Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT 17 v. 18 THE MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF 19 CHICAGO, an Illinois corporation, 20 Defendant. 21 22 Before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 48, 23 and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 49. 24 The motions were considered without oral argument. 25 Background 26 The facts and procedural history of this case are not particularly relevant to 27 the current motion and the parties are familiar with the background with the case. 28 Thus, they are only briefly summarized here. 1 Plaintiff Yuki Lee is the widow of Joochan (“Austen”) Lee. Mr. Lee was an 2 enrolled student in Defendant’s aviation program in Spokane, seeking a degree in 3 Aviation Technology as a pilot. On July 13, 2018, Mr. Lee was killed during one 4 of Defendant’s training flights when the plane struck a bird and crashed. 5 On August 29, 2019, Ms. Lee and her minor daughter, A.L.—both on behalf 6 of Mr. Lee’s estate, but also as beneficiaries and heirs to Ms. Lee’s estate—filed a 7 Complaint against Defendant in Spokane County Superior Court, alleging claims 8 for negligence and res ipsa loquitur. ECF No. 2. Defendant removed the action to 9 federal court based on diversity jurisdiction on September 24, 2019. ECF No. 1. 10 Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment on January 10, 2022. 11 ECF No. 36. The Court issued an Order Denying Defendant’s Motion for 12 Summary Judgment on April 18, 2022. ECF No. 47. 13 Defendant filed its Motion for Reconsideration on May 16, 2022. ECF No. 14 48. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint on 15 May 25, 2022. ECF No. 49. 16 Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration 17 Defendant requests reconsideration of the Court’s Order Denying 18 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 47. Defendant argues that 19 the Court’s Order committed clear error by finding that Defendant owed Mr. Lee a 20 duty akin to that of a common carrier and that the Moody Aviation Agreement was 21 void as against public policy. 22 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 23 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. 24 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for 25 reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. 27 Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court 28 may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered 1 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 2 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. 3 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). 4 “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting 5 reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for 6 reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 7 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 8 Cir. 2003). 9 The Court denies Defendant’s motion. Defendant has not presented newly 10 discovered evidence or an intervening change in the controlling law. Defendant has 11 also not shown that the Court committed clear error or that the initial decision was 12 manifestly unjust. 13 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 14 Plaintiffs request that the Court grant them leave to amend their Complaint 15 so they can add a claim for gross negligence. Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s 16 request to amend because they argue that the addition of the gross negligence claim 17 is “baseless,” “unfounded,” and unsupported by deposition testimony and factual 18 discovery. Additionally, Defendant argues that the addition of the gross negligence 19 claim, nearly three years into the litigation, is unfairly prejudicial. 20 The primary basis for Plaintiffs’ motion is that their “proposed amendment 21 conforms to significant new evidence regarding a birdstrike as revealed in the 22 NTSB report.” ECF No. 49 at 3. However, NTSB published its report on October 23 28, 2020. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs do not offer any explanation as to why they waited 24 nearly 19 months after receiving the NTSB report before filing a motion to amend 25 their Complaint. Plaintiffs’ delay in bringing their motion is even more notable 26 given that the parties have already completed expert discovery and engaged in 27 substantial litigation on the issue of Defendant’s alleged negligence. Thus, the 28 Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 48, is DENIED. 3 2. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 49, is DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to file this Order and provide copies to counsel. DATED this 21st day of June 2022. 8 9 10 ‘ Souler Eee Yoar 12 Stanley A. Bastian 13 Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION;