Weil v. Citizens Telecom Services Company, LLC

Opinion

1 2

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

9 10 DAVID R. WEIL, CASE NO. C15-0835JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR CITIZENS TELECOM SERVICES 13 COMPANY, LLC, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 Before the court is Plaintiff David R. Weil’s motion for reconsideration of the 16 court’s order granting Defendants Citizens Telecom Services Company, LLC and 17 Frontier Communications Corporation’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion for partial 18 summary judgment to limit Mr. Weil’s damages claim. (Mot. (Dkt. # 74: see also 19 11/8/19 Order (Dkt. # 73).) For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED. 20 Pursuant to Local Rule LCR 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored 21 and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the prior 22 1 ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the attention 2 of the court earlier, through reasonable diligence. Local Rule W.D. Wash LCR 7(h)(1).

3 Mr. Weil presents no new facts or legal authority. (See generally Mot.) Instead, 4 Mr. Weil asserts that the court committed manifest error by overlooking or 5 misinterpreting the applicable law. (See Mot. at 1.) Mr. Weil’s motion consists of 6 arguments the court has already considered, addressed, and rejected. Mr. Weil’s 7 disagreements with the court’s analysis do not establish manifest error. See, e.g., Russell 8 v. Comcast Corp., No. C08-0309TSZ, 2009 WL 995720, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 13,

9 2009) (“Plaintiff’s motion is denied because, for the most part it simply rehashes 10 arguments already made and rejected by the Court, and otherwise fails to establish that 11 the Court committed a manifest error of law or fact.”) (citing Brown v. Wright, 588 F.2d 12 708, 710 (9th Cir. 1978)). 13 Because Mr. Weil did not make a showing of manifest error in the court’s prior

14 ruling or identify any new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought to the 15 court’s attention earlier with reasonable diligence, the court DENIES Mr. Weil’s motion 16 for reconsideration (Dkt. # 74). 17 Dated this 26th day of November, 2019. 18 A 19 United States District Judge

21 22