Seidler v. Amazon

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 KATHRYN MARIE SEIDLER, CASE NO. C23-0816JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 AMAZON, 13 Defendant. 14

15 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Kathryn Marie Seidler’s “motion with 16 declaration of plaintiff in support of further continuance: health related reasons; and 17 Request to vacate closing of the case on 12 Feb 24,” which the court construes as a 18 motion for reconsideration of its February 12, 2024 order denying Ms. Seidler’s motion 19 to stay these proceedings and dismissing this matter with prejudice for failure to state a 20 claim. (Mot. (Dkt. # 37); see also 2/12/24 Order (Dkt. # 35).) 21 “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” and the court “will ordinarily deny 22 such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a 1 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention 2 earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1).

3 “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy,” and the moving party bears a “heavy 4 burden.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). 5 Here, Ms. Seidler seeks reconsideration solely because she “is and was 6 experiencing ‘fogginess’ due to menopausal symptoms” and hormonal therapy. (Seidler 7 Decl. (Dkt. # 37-1) at 2 (quoting id., Ex. 27 (physician encounter notes dated December 8 21, 2023)); see also Mot. at 2.) Ms. Seidler fails to raise any new facts or legal authority

9 that could not have been brought to the court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence. 10 Indeed, Ms. Seidler acknowledges that she could have brought this matter to the court’s 11 attention sooner, yet she elected not to. (See id. at 2 (explaining she had not previously 12 raised this issue because she “did not want to publicize [her health condition] 13 Federally”).) Moreover, Ms. Seidler makes no claim that menopausal brain fog rendered

14 her unable to participate in this case such that a stay was warranted, nor does she explain 15 why her health condition otherwise justifies reconsideration. (See generally Mot.; Seidler 16 Decl.) Ms. Seidler therefore fails to carry her heavy burden to demonstrate why the court 17 should reconsider its February 12, 2024 order. 18 Accordingly, the court DENIES Ms. Seidler’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

19 # 35). 20 Dated this 13th day of February, 2024. A 21 JAMES L. ROBART 22 United States District Judge