Roth v. CNR Products Inc

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 ROTH, Case No.: 20-cv-0256-BJR 9 Plaintiff,

10 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 11 CNR PRODUCTS, INC., et al.

12 Defendants.

13 14 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of this Court’s 15 September 25, 2020 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended 16 complaint and denying Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees. Dkt. No. 27 (order); Dkt. No. 29 17 (motion). Having reviewed the motion, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authority, 18 the Court denies the motion. The reasoning for the Court’s decision follows. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h): 21 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a 22 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence. 23 1 Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 2 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 3 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be 4 granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly

5 discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling 6 law.” Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 7 2009) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) 8 (alteration in original). “Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for 9 reconsideration.” Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 10 2005). 11 Plaintiff has not met this heavy burden. He raises no newly issued legal authority or 12 newly developed factual evidence. He simply reargues issues that were thoroughly briefed and 13 considered by the Court when it granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended

14 complaint. While Plaintiff believes this Court erred in reaching its decision, he has not 15 established manifest error. Disagreement with the Court’s conclusion is not a sufficient basis 16 upon which to grant a motion for reconsideration. Haw. Stevedores, 363 F. Supp. 2d at 1269. 17 Thus, the motion for reconsideration must be denied. 18 III. CONCLUSION 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for 20 reconsideration (Dkt. No. 29). 21 Dated this 22nd day of October 2020. 22 A 23 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge