Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nguyen v. The Boeing Co.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

September 19, 2017

MINHNGA NGUYEN, Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant.

          ORDER

          Hon. Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Relief From Order # 46 and Order # 65, Motion to Compel and Correct Order Docket # 65, and Motion to Strike Boeing's Insufficient Answers. Dkt. ## 72, 74, 78. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motions.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Minhnga Nguyen (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff received two opportunities to amend her complaint. Dkt. ## 24, 41. After Plaintiff's third complaint failed to cure the deficiencies in the first two complaints, the Court granted Defendant's third motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiff leave to amend. Dkt. # 46. The remaining issue to be resolved in this case is Plaintiff's claim that she was terminated in retaliation for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Id.

         On January 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. # 50. Plaintiff then retained counsel and requested the Court stay its decision on the motion until Plaintiff's counsel could acquaint themselves with the matter. Dkt. # 58. On March 6, 2017, Plaintiff filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration. Dkt. # 61. On June 30, 2017, the Court found that Plaintiff's motions for reconsideration were untimely. The Court nevertheless reviewed Plaintiff's arguments and found that even if the motions had been timely, Plaintiff failed to meet her burden under Local Rule 7(h)(1). Dkt. # 65.

         On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. Dkt. # 69. The Court struck Plaintiff's motion without prejudice with leave to refile after the parties met and conferred in accordance with Local Rule 37(a)(1). Dkt. # 70. Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Relief, a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Strike. Dkt. ## 72, 74, 78.

         III. ANALYSIS

         a. Motion for Reconsideration

         On August 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from the Court's Order granting Defendant's third motion to dismiss and from the Court's Order denying her motions to reconsider. The Court interprets this as a renewed motion for reconsideration.

         Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1). A motion for reconsideration must be brought within fourteen (14) days after the order to which it relates was filed. LCR 7(h)(2).

         As with Plaintiff's previous motions for reconsideration, Plaintiff's current Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's December 20, 2016 Order is untimely. Plaintiff also asks the Court to reconsider the June 30, 2017 Order denying her previous motions for reconsideration. Plaintiff filed her current Motion on August 15, 2017, or well after the fourteen (14) day deadline. Thus, to the extent that the Motion requests reconsideration of the June 30, 2017 Order, it is also untimely. Plaintiff again attempts to bring her Motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 in order to take advantage of the extended deadline to file. However, Plaintiff fails to show any “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence” such that relief under Rule 60 would be appropriate.

         Even if Plaintiff's Motion was timely in relation to either Order, Plaintiff failed to meet her burden under LCR 7(h)(1). Plaintiff's Motion provides no new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the Court's attention earlier nor does it point to a “manifest error” in the previous ruling. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider is DENIED. Dkt. # 72.

         b. Moti ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.