Sharp v. Giga Watt Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: May 14, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00078
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 May 14, 2025 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 In re: GIGA WATT INC., 8 Debtor. No. 2:25-CV-00078-SAB 9 10 ANDREA SHARP, ORDER DENYING 11 Appellant, RECONSIDERATION 12 v. 13 GIGA WATT INC.; MARK D. 14 WALDRON, Trustee, 15 Appellees. 16 17 Before the Court is Appellant’s Construed Motion for Reconsideration ECF 18 No. 14. Appellant is pro se. Appellee is represented by Pamela Egan. The motion 19 was heard without oral argument. 20 BACKGROUND 21 The facts underlying this case have previously been described at length. See 22 ECF No. 10 at 1–3. 23 On January 30, 2025, the Bankruptcy Court granted Trustee Waldron’s 24 omnibus objections. On March 5, 2025, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal in the 25 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, seeking to overturn the 26 Order. On April 25, 2025, this Court entered an order of dismissal, noting that the 27 appeal was untimely under the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy and there was nothing 28 in the record to show the Bankruptcy Court had extended the deadline. Appellant 1 filed the instant motion on May 8, 2025. 2 MOTION STANDARD 3 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 4 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. 5 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for 6 reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. 8 Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court 9 may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered 10 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 11 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. 12 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). 13 “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting 14 reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for 15 reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 16 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 17 Cir. 2003). 18 ANALYSIS 19 Here, Appellant has failed to demonstrate circumstances that warrant 20 reconsideration. She has neither presented new evidence nor demonstrated an 21 intervening change in controlling law. Moreover, Appellant does not contend that 22 the Court’s prior order was entered in error, she simply argues that the Bankruptcy 23 Rule is a “very minor procedural filing deadline.” Appellant is mistaken: the 14- 24 day deadline is jurisdictional, and failure to meet the deadline leaves this Court 25 without the necessary jurisdiction to hear the appeal, even if consideration were 26 appropriate. See In re Wilkins, 587 B.R. 97, 102–03 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2018). 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Appellant’s Construed Motion for Reconsideration ECF No. 14, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order, 5|| provide copies to pro se Appellant and appellee counsel, and close the file. DATED this 14th day of May 2025.

8 9 Soule Fecha Stanley A. Bastian 12 Chief United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

OVNEP NONVING DECANCINED ATION +42