Wilson v. Sinclair

Opinion

Nov 23, 2022 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TOBIAS WILSON, a.k.a. TOBIN No. 2:22-CV-0014-TOR SATHER, and KENNETH LAWRENCE, Plaintiffs, RECONSIDERATION v. JAY INSLEE, STEPHEN SINCLAIR, MURPHY, JEFF UTTECHT, SARAH SYTSMA, DR. SARAH KARIKO, and GREG MILLER, Defendants.

BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Order of the District Judge, ECF No. 21, construed as a motion for reconsideration. Defendants filed their response. ECF No. 22. The motion was considered without oral argument on the date signed below. Plaintiffs object to this Court’s denial of their motion to change venue. Where a final judgment has not been entered, the Court has discretion to reconsider under Rule 54(b), which allows courts to revise “any order or other

decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties . . . before the entry of a judgment . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Los Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d

882, 887 (9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, the Court has inherent common-law authority “to rescind an interlocutory order over which it has jurisdiction.” Id. While both Rule 54(b) and the common law provide distinct authority under which a court may reconsider its rulings, the analysis under both appears to be the

same. Motorola, Inc. v. J.B. Rodgers Mech. Contractors, 215 F.R.D. 581, 583 (D. Ariz. 2003). Here, a final judgment has not been entered; thus, Rule 54(b) or the

common law is the applicable authority. As a rule, a court should be loath to revisit its own decisions in the absence of extraordinary circumstances such as where the initial decision was “clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817

(1988). Nonetheless, whether to grant a motion for reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

Plaintiff has not identified an intervening change in the law, submitted any new evidence, or demonstrated the Court committed clear error that was

manifestly unjust. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Plaintiffs’ Objection to the Order of the District Judge, ECF No. 21, construed as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish copies to the parties. DATED November 23, 2022.

ll Qaeie es OMAS O. RICE Qs United States District Judge