Shady Knoll Orchards & Distillery LLC v. Vollendroff

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON May 27, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8

9 SHADY KNOLL ORCHARDS & DISTILLERY LLC, PETER NO. 1:23-CV-3093-TOR 10 WRIGHT, and CHRIS BAUM, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 11 Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

12 v.

13 JIM VOLLENDROFF, Chairperson of the Washington Liquor and 14 Cannabis Commission,

15 Defendant. 16

17 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Reconsideration. 18 ECF No. 38. This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument. 19 The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. 20 Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 38) is DENIED. 1 DISCUSSION 2 A. Reconsideration Standard

3 A motion for reconsideration of a judgment may be reviewed under either 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 5 Rule 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

6 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is 7 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial 8 decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 9 controlling law.” Id. at 1263; United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc.,

10 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). Whether to grant a motion 11 for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 12 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th

13 Cir. 2003). 14 As a rule, a court should be “loathe” to revisit its own decisions “in the 15 absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was 16 ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.’” Christianson v. Colt

17 Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988) (internal citation omitted). This 18 principle is embodied in the law of the case doctrine, under which “a court is 19 generally precluded from reconsidering an issue that has already been decided by

20 the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.” United States v. Alexander, 1|| 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting Thomas v. Bible, 983 F.2d 152, 154 (9th Cir. 1993)). While the district court possesses inherent power to reconsider and amend previous orders, this is an extraordinary remedy that should be used 4|| sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources. 5 B. Plaintiff's Arguments for Reconsideration 6 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration argues that it did not have the case 7\| law of Day v. Henry, 129 F.4th 1197, 1204 (9th Cir. 2025) during its briefing. 8 Plaintiffs have raised no issues which would require this Court to reconsider its decision. 10}} ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 11 Plaintiffs’ Expedited Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 38) is DENIED. 12 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish 13 || copies to counsel. The file remains CLOSED. 14 DATED May 27, 2025.

a Hear Of Cet 16 ne Xe THOMAS O. RICE <= United States District Judge 17 18 19 20