Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE ARTUR SARGSYAN, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-1257-JNW Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. AMAZON.COM INC, Defendant. This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Artur Sargsyan’s “Motion to Vacate the Rule 4(d) Waiver Attempt and to Direct Immediate Service by the U.S. Marshal Service.” Dkt. No. 17. He essentially asks the Court to reconsider its order on his motion requesting marshal service. Dkt. No. 15. Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d

950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation modified). Sargsyan meets none of these requirements. He presents no new evidence

identifies no legal error. His arguments about delay and likely futility of waiver

attempts were available when he filed his original motion for marshal service, and

g are unpersuasive in any event. The Court’s decision to attempt the more

efficient waiver process first, with marshal service to follow if Amazon fails to waive

service, is reasonable and within the Court’s discretion.

Sargsyan’s motion is DENIED. Dkt. No. 17.

Dated this 19th day of September, 2025.

Z ? LE ) -— amal N. Whitehead United States District Judge