United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION
TO AMEND COMPLAINT
J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.
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:
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to amend the complaint is
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.
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.
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.
motion shall be filed within 14 days following the finding of
the order to which it relates. LCR 7(h)(2).
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
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
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