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.

Dalessio v. University of Washington

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

July 9, 2019

JULIE DALESSIO, Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

          MARSHA J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Amend Complaint (Dkt. No. 184), Defendants' Opposition (Dkt. No. 186), all attached declarations and exhibits, and relevant portions of the record, rules as follows:

         IT IS ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to amend the complaint is DENIED.

         Background

         Plaintiff, originally appearing pro se, filed a complaint in state court alleging invasion of privacy, public records violations, breach of contract, defamation/libel, discrimination/retaliation and negligence. (Dkt. No. 1-1.) The matter was removed by Defendants to federal court in April 2017. (Dkt. No. 1.) In January 2018, counsel was appointed to represent Plaintiff (Dkt. No. 67) and an amended complaint was filed, now alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments), breach of contract, and public disclosure of private facts. (Dkt. No. 82.)

         Over the course of two summary judgment motions filed by Defendants, Plaintiff was challenged to produce both facts and law to support her claims. This Court found deficiencies in both areas - a portion of her claims were dismissed in February 2019 (Dkt. No. 153) and the remainder of her case was dismissed in its entirety in June 2019. (Dkt. No. 176.) Plaintiff has filed a motion to reconsider (1) the order denying her motion to reconsider the partial granting of Defendant's first summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 160) and (2) the order and judgment granting Defendant's second summary judgment motion and dismissing her case. (Dkt. Nos. 176, 177.) Additionally, she has requested leave to file an amended complaint.

         Discussion

         Local Rule 7(h) (“Motions for Reconsideration”) states:

(1) 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.

         The motion shall be filed within 14 days following the finding of the order to which it relates. LCR 7(h)(2).

         In keeping with the filing deadline announced at LCR 7(h)(2), that portion of Plaintiff's motion seeking reconsideration of the order at Dkt. No. 160 will be summarily denied. That order was issued on March 15, 2019 and the 14-day deadline has long expired. Furthermore, that order was already a denial of a motion for reconsideration (improperly characterized as a “Motion for Relief Pursuant to FRCP 60(a)”); Plaintiff's only legitimate recourse is an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

         Regarding that portion of Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration which is addressed to the Order Granting Defendants' Second Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 176), the Court finds that motion for reconsideration was timely filed. Plaintiff claims both legal error and new facts in justification of her position that the Court ruled improperly against her.

         Turning first to her allegations of “new evidence, ” Plaintiff asserts that evidence which was produced in April 2019 pursuant to a public records request from “Public Records News Media” (found at Dkt. Nos. 172, 173, and 174) constitutes “new facts” justifying a ...


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.