Scott's Trucking LLC v. Navistar Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01841
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE

8 SCOTT’S TRUCKING, LLC, Case No. C20-1841-RSM

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 10 v. 11 NAVISTAR, INC., 12 13 Defendant.

14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Scott’s Trucking, LLC (“Scott 15 16 Trucking”)’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Dkt. #64. Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant 17 to Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the Court’s prior judgment dismissing this case “to correct a clear 18 error and prevent manifest injustice.” Id. at 1. On September 7, 2021, the Court dismissed 19 Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Navistar, Inc. (“Navistar”) as time-barred, finding that the 20 applicable statute of limitations periods were not tolled for the pendency of the action because 21 22 (1) Navistar did not waive its improper service defense through its participation the multidistrict 23 litigation (“MDL”) in which this action was once a member case, and (2) an extension of 24 Plaintiff’s time to Navistar was not sufficiently justified. Dkt. #62. Plaintiff argues, as it did in 25 its Response to Navistar’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss, that Navistar waived its failure to serve 26 argument by participating in the MDL for more than four years without raising the service issue 27 28 and that the court improperly distinguished this case from Blankenship v. Kaldor, 114 Wn.App. 312, 57 P.3d 295 (2002), and Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29, 1 P.3d 1124 (2000). Dkt. 1 2 #64 at 2–3. 3 A district court has considerable discretion when considering a motion to alter or amend 4 a judgment under Rule 59(e). Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th 5 Cir. 2003). A motion for relief from judgment under Rule 59(e) should be granted when the 6 Court: “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the initial 7 8 decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 9 In re Syncor ERISA Litigation, 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Vacating 10 a prior judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 11 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 12 13 945 (9th Cir. 2003). 14 Here, Plaintiff does not offer newly discovered evidence or argue that there has been an 15 intervening change in controlling law. Instead, it argues manifest error. Plaintiff essentially 16 repeats the same arguments. Compare Dkt. #64 at 2–3, with Dkt. #60 at 3–7. Although the Court 17 prefers to rule on the merits of cases rather than procedure, the outcome here is not manifestly 18 19 unjust given the reasons set forth in its previous order. See Dkt. #62 at 5–9. Accordingly, relief 20 under Rule 59(e) is not warranted. 21 Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby 22 finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Dkt. #64, is DENIED. 23 24 DATED this 27th day of January, 2023. 25 A 26 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28