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.

Quinn v. City of Vancouver

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

September 10, 2019

DEBRA QUINN, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF VANCOUVER, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

          BENJAMIN H. SETTLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Bronson Potter's (“Potter”) motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 175, Defendant Jonathan Young's (“Young”) motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 176, and Defendant the City of Vancouver's (“City”) motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 177.

         I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On August 21, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Potter, Young, the City, and Defendant Eric Holmes's (“Holmes”) motions for summary judgment. Dkt. 170. On September 4, 2019, Potter, Young, and the City each moved for reconsideration. Dkts. 175, 176, 177.

         The facts of the case are set forth in the Court's order on the motions for summary judgment. Dkt. 170.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 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 Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

         In this case, Potter, Young, and the City each move for reconsideration on the basis that the Court committed manifest errors of law.

         A. Potter's Motion

         Potter asks the Court to reconsider its decision to deny his motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Debra Quinn's (“Quinn”) disparate treatment claim against him. Dkt. 175 at 1.

         Quinn alleged Potter subjected her to disparate treatment on the basis of gender when Potter decided to promote Young instead of Quinn to the Chief Assistant City Attorney position in 2014. Potter argues that the Court committed manifest error by relying on inadmissible hearsay to establish an inference that discrimination was a substantial factor motivating Potter's decision. Dkt. 175 at 2. In their joint motion for summary judgment, Potter and Young made evidentiary objections on a substantial number of issues in the case. Dkt. 134 at 2 n.1. The Court explained that on summary judgment, a court may consider evidence that “could be presented in an admissible form at trial. Dkt. 170 at 43 (quoting Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1031, 1037 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Court also explained that Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(2) permits a party to “object that the material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.” Id.

         First, Potter argues that the Court improperly relied on Quinn's testimony that Chief Molina told her Potter made a negative comment about her during an interview panel in the hiring process for the position. Dkt. 175 at 3. Potter argues that Quinn had “ample opportunity to obtain a sworn declaration from Chief Molina or to take his deposition to present such evidence to the court, ” or produce a text message Quinn said she received from Chief Molina. Id. The Court is not persuaded nor does Potter provide authority establishing that it is clear error to consider evidence that could be admissible because an opposing party failed to obtain and submit the evidence in an admissible form for purposes of summary judgment. At the very least, the statement may ...


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.