Nielsen v. California Capital Insurance Company

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

JOSIE NIELSEN, a single woman, NO. 2:22-CV-0177-TOR Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. CLARIFICATION AND RECONSIDERATION INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, and EAGLE WEST INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation,

Defendants. BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification, Motion to Expedite, and Motion for Reconsideration. ECF Nos. 136, 140, 141. These matters were submitted for consideration without oral argument. The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. Despite being placed on notice by the defense that they were seeking a ruling under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) (ECF No. 71), Plaintiff provided no argument otherwise in her Reply (ECF No. 96). Plaintiff now comes forward with substantial information and evidence and seeks reconsideration of the

Court’s ruling. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) governs reconsideration of a non-final order. An order that resolves fewer than all the claims among the parties – that is,

a non-final order – “may be revised at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Grunwald, 400 F.3d 1119, 1124 (9th Cir. 2005). Where reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has

“inherent jurisdiction to modify, alter, or revoke” its order. United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v.

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). Having considered the argument and information now supplied, the Court withdraws its rulings that granted partial summary judgment to Defendants on

Plaintiff’s IFCA and bad faith claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(1). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment remains denied, but the ruling in favor of the Defendants is withdrawn and vacated.

// ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification (ECF. No 136) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff's Motion Expedite (ECF No. 140) is GRANTED. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 141) is GRANTED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to counsel. DATED September 25, 2023. Mop %. av: ets 0. Kies On Ke THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge