United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Garnishee M&T Securities, Inc.'s ("M&T") motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 12). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein.
I. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL HISTORY
On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff San Juan Construction, Inc. ("San Juan") filed an application for a writ of garnishment on Defendants R. Custom Excavation, Inc. and Upper Hudson National Insurance Group ("Upper Hudson") seeking a garnishment of $634, 016.20. Dkt. 1.
On November 20, 2014, a writ of garnishment was issued on M&T. Dkt. 3. On December 11, 2014, M&T answered stating that it held approximately $200, 000 belonging to at least one of the defendants. Dkt. 4.
On January 5, 2015, San Juan filed a motion for judgment on the answer. Dkt. 8. On January 26, 2015, the Court granted the motion, entered judgment in favor of San Juan, and ordered M&T to deposit $201, 142.92 into the Court registry in accordance with the funds of Upper Hudson. Dkt. 10.
On February 9, 2015, M&T filed a motion for reconsideration asserting that the funds were subject to a preexisting obligation. Dkt. 12. On February 17, 2015, San Juan responded. Dkt. 17. On February 20, 2015, M&T replied.
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides as follows:
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
In this case, M&T moves for reconsideration based on an employee's oversight that the funds are subject to a preexisting obligation. Although this is new information that could have been brought to the Court's attention earlier, the question is whether the oversight could have been avoided with reasonable diligence. This is a close question, but, based on the underlying merits arguments, the Court finds that the oversight should be excused. Moreover, even if the Court denied the instant motion, M&T has set forth persuasive arguments for a Rule 60 motion to vacate the judgment. It is in the best interests of the parties and the Court to vacate the judgment now and proceed to the merits of the preexisting obligation rather than waste additional resources on a subsequent post-judgment motion. Therefore, the Court grants M&T's motion for reconsideration.
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that M&T's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 12) is GRANTED and the judgment (Dkt. 10) is VACATED. The parties shall meet and confer and submit a status report on how they intend to proceed with this ...