Seabourn Cruise Line Limited v. Goldring

W.D. Washington

Seabourn Cruise Line Limited v. Goldring

DecidedSeptember 12, 2022

Docket2:22-cv-00999

StatusUnknown

This text of Seabourn Cruise Line Limited v. Goldring (Seabourn Cruise Line Limited v. Goldring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Seabourn Cruise Line Limited v. Goldring, (W.D. Wash. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 SEABOURN CRUISE LINE LIMITED, HOLLAND AMERICA LINE NV, 9 CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00999-BAT Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 v. RECONSIDERATION 11 ERIC J GOLDRING, GOLDRING 12 TRAVEL LLC, 13 Defendants.

14 Defendant Eric J. Goldring and Goldring Travel LLC requests the Court to reconsider its 15 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Seal (Dkt. 42). Dkt. 16 48. The motion is denied. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a 19 showing of (a) manifest error in the ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have 20 been brought to the attention of the court earlier, through reasonable diligence. CR 7(h)(1). The 21 term “manifest error” is “an error that is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete 22 disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record.” Black's Law Dictionary 23 622 (9th ed. 2009). 1 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 2 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 3 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Natraceuticals, 4 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). A motion for

5 reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court had already thought 6 through — rightly or wrongly. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. 7 Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration, 8 and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been 9 presented at the time of the challenged decision. Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. 10 Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to 11 the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima 12 Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 Here, Plaintiff is simply rehashing arguments that the Court has already considered. 14 Plaintiff has shown no highly unusual circumstances, newly discovered evidence, clear error, or

15 an intervening change in the controlling law. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 16 48) is DENIED. 17 DATED this 12th day of September, 2022. 18 A 19 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 SEABOURN CRUISE LINE LIMITED, HOLLAND AMERICA LINE NV, 9 CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00999-BAT Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 v. RECONSIDERATION 11 ERIC J GOLDRING, GOLDRING 12 TRAVEL LLC, 13 Defendants.

14 Defendant Eric J. Goldring and Goldring Travel LLC requests the Court to reconsider its 15 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion to Seal (Dkt. 42). Dkt. 16 48. The motion is denied. 17 DISCUSSION 18 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a 19 showing of (a) manifest error in the ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have 20 been brought to the attention of the court earlier, through reasonable diligence. CR 7(h)(1). The 21 term “manifest error” is “an error that is plain and indisputable, and that amounts to a complete 22 disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record.” Black's Law Dictionary 23 622 (9th ed. 2009). 1 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 2 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 3 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Natraceuticals, 4 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). A motion for

5 reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court had already thought 6 through — rightly or wrongly. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. 7 Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration, 8 and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been 9 presented at the time of the challenged decision. Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F. 10 Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to 11 the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima 12 Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). 13 Here, Plaintiff is simply rehashing arguments that the Court has already considered. 14 Plaintiff has shown no highly unusual circumstances, newly discovered evidence, clear error, or

15 an intervening change in the controlling law. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 16 48) is DENIED. 17 DATED this 12th day of September, 2022. 18 A 19 BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Seabourn Cruise Line Limited v. Goldring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seabourn-cruise-line-limited-v-goldring-wawd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack