Rhine v. DML Capital Inc

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 DANIEL RHINE, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00107-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 DML CAPITAL, INC.; DML CAPITAL 11 MANAGEMENT, LLC; DML CAPITAL MORTGAGE FUND, LLC; CAMPOS 12 FINANCIAL CORP.; LIONSCOVE, INC.; LIONSCOVE MANAGEMENT, 13 LLC; LIONSCOVE FUND I, LLC,

14 Defendants. 15 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Daniel Rhine’s motion 16 for reconsideration of the Court’s denial, at Dkt. No. 20, of Rhine’s motion, at Dkt. 17 No. 13, to remand this action to King County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 22. For the 18 reasons explained below, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 19 “‘Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” LCR 7(h)(1), and “‘should not be 20 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented 21 with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening 22 change in the controlling law.’” Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH 23 1 & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 2 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.1999)). “Whether… to grant reconsideration is committed

3 to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands 4 of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 5 Rhine seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order denying his motion to 6 remand on grounds of alleged legal error. See Dkt. No. 22 at 2. According to Rhine, 7 the Court erred in rejecting his argument that “Defendants’ removal was untimely 8 because the removal period began to run on October 7, 2024, when [the registered

9 agent of Defendant Lionscove, Inc.] accepted e-service of the summons and 10 complaint.” See Dkt. No. 20 at 4. Rhine argues that the Court failed to properly 11 apply Washington State Civil Rule 5(b)(7), which authorizes service “by delivering a 12 copy by any other means, including facsimile or electronic means, consented to in 13 writing by the person served or as authorized under local court rule.” Dkt. No. 22 at 14 3; see Wash. Civ. R. 5(b). 15 This argument is not new. The Court soundly rejected it in its prior Order,

16 explaining that Washington Civil Rule 4, not 5, governs service of the original 17 complaint and summons—“[a]nd while CR 5(b)(7) allows for a party to consent to 18 service via ‘electronic means,’ CR 4 does not.” Dkt. No. 20 at 4 (quoting Wash. Civ. 19 R. 5(b)(7)). This conclusion stands. Under the proper application of Rule 4, “personal 20 service of the original complaint was accomplished on December 31, 2024.” Id. at 5. 21 “Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ removal on January 16, 2025, was

22 timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).” Id. 23 1 Because Rhine raises no valid grounds for reconsideration, his motion is 2 DENIED. Dkt. No. 22. The deadlines set forth in the Court’s initial scheduling order

3 remain binding on the Parties. See Dkt. No. 21. 4 It is so ORDERED. 5 Dated this 5th day of May, 2025. 6 a Jamal N. Whitehead 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23