Reed v. Community Health Care

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 ROBERT ALLEN REED et al., CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05228-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 12 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 13 COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE et al., 22) 14 Defendant. 15

16 Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court’s order consolidating Reed et al. v. 17 Community Health Care, 3:25-cv-05228-DGE (hereinafter, “Reed 1”) and Reed et al. v. 18 Community Health Care, 3:25-cv-05435-DGE (hereinafter, “Reed 2”). (Dkt. No. 22; see also 19 Dkt. No. 18.) 20 After the matters were consolidated, Plaintiffs filed a “Second Amended Complaint for 21 State Law Damages (Non-Federal Tort Claims Only).” (Dkt. No. 20.) Plaintiffs assert this new 22 pleading withdraws all federal law claims originally asserted in Reed 2. (Id. at 1–2.) According 23 to Plaintiffs, this new pleading warrants reconsideration of the consolidation order and otherwise 24 1 requires Reed 2 be remanded to state court because only state-law claims remain in Reed 2. (Id. 2 at 3–4.) As the argument goes, with the removal of all federal claims, the Court may not 3 exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims purportedly remaining in Reed 2. 4 (Id.) Plaintiffs also argue the new pleading (Dkt. No. 20) “alleges distinct events unrelated to

5 January 5, 2023,” which is the day the Defendants provided treatment to only one of Plaintiffs’ 6 children and which Reed 1 is also based on. (Dkt. No. 22 at 4–7.)1 7 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” and “[t]he court will ordinarily deny such 8 motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new 9 facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable 10 diligence.” Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, 11 absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 12 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 13 Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) 14 (citation omitted). “A motion for reconsideration is not intended to provide litigants with a

15 second bite at the apple.” Stevens v. Pierce Cnty., No. C22- 5862 BHS, 2023 WL 6807204, at *2 16 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 16, 2023). 17 First, even accepting the “Second Amended Complaint for State Law Damages (Non- 18 Federal Tort Claims Only)” as the operative complaint in Reed 2, Reed 1 and Reed 2 continue to 19 involve the same parties. Second, the “Second Amended Complaint for State Law Damages 20 (Non-Federal Tort Claims Only)” continues to relate to events that occurred on January 5, 2023. 21 (See Dkt. No. 20 at 5–7) (“On January 5, 2023, I.R. was seen by Dr. Jannell Harro at CHC….”). 22

23 1 Plaintiffs also argue that because Defendants assert Plaintiffs’ claims are “both untimely and unexhausted,” there is no basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 22 at 4.) The Court’s jurisdiction over an asserted 24 controversy, however, is not eliminated merely because a defendant asserts defenses against purported claims. 1 Third, Reed 2 was removed from state court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 233(c) because Plaintiffs 2 asserted damages relating to “the performance of medical . . . or related functions . . . by any 3 commissioned officer or employee of the Public Health Service while acting within the scope of 4 his office or employment.” (See Reed 2, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiffs “Second Amended Complaint

5 for State Law Damages (Non-Federal Tort Claims Only)” continues to assert damages related to 6 the performance of medical or related functions by a commissioned employee of the Public 7 Health Service. Thus, the “Second Amended Complaint for State Law Damages (Non-Federal 8 Tort Claims Only)” in no way impacts the basis for removal under 42 U.S.C. § 233(c). 9 In sum, Plaintiffs fail to establish manifest error in the Court’s decision to consolidate 10 Reed 1 and Reed 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 11 Dated this 7th day of July, 2025. 12 A 13 David G. Estudillo 14 United States District Judge

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24