Duplessis v. Golden State Foods Inc et al Doc.

61
Case 3:06-cv-05631-RJB Document 61 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 1 of 3

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9 AT TACOMA

10
BERNELL DUPLESSIS, individually,
11
Plaintiff,
12
v. CASE NO. C06-5631RJB
13
GOLDEN STATE FOODS, a Delaware ORDER ON MOTION FOR
Corporation doing business in Washington RECONSIDERATION AND
14
State; DANIEL VAN HOOZER, individually, MODIFICATION OF THE
and JANE DOE VAN HOOZER, individually, COURT’S SUMMARY
15
and the marital community composed thereof JUDGMENT ORDERS OF APRIL
16, 2007
16

17

18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and

19 Modification of the Court’s Summary Judgment Orders of April 16, 2007 (Dkt. 60). The Court

20 has considered the motion and the remainder of the file herein.

21 I. BACKGROUND

22 On April 16, 2007, the Court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment but

23 did not dismiss the plaintiff’s claims for assault and battery. Dkt. 59 at 18 (“The defendants’ briefs

24 do not address the plaintiffs’ assault and battery claims. These are therefore the only claims

25 remaining for trial.”). The defendants move for reconsideration on the grounds that their motions

26 sought dismissal of all claims. Dkt. 60 at 1. The defendants contend that they “established through

27 [their] extensive briefing and citations to Plaintiff’s deposition that Plaintiff has no factual support

28
ORDER
Page 1
Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 3:06-cv-05631-RJB Document 61 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 2 of 3

1 for his claims of assault and battery.” Dkt. 60 at 1-2. The defendants do not cite the portions of

2 their briefs establishing that the plaintiff’s assault and battery claims are without merit.

3 II. DISCUSSION

4 The burden on a motion for reconsideration is high:

5 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
6 showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention
earlier with reasonable diligence.
7

8 Local Rule CR 7(h)(1). The defendants offer new argument and authority regarding the assault

9 and battery claims and ask the Court to “convert this motion [for reconsideration] to Defendants

10 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Assault and Battery Claims” if “the Court

11 determines that Defendants’ request is not properly the subject of a motion for reconsideration.”

12 Dkt. 60 at 2 n.1. Reconsideration is not appropriate here, but following the defendants’

13 suggestion will allow the Court to consider the merits of the parties’ positions, and will allow a

14 due process opportunity to brief and respond to the issue of whether the plaintiff has viable claims

15 for assault and battery.

16 II. ORDER

17 Therefore, it is hereby

18 ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration and Modification of the Court’s

19 Summary Judgment Orders of April 16, 2007 (Dkt. 60) is CONVERTED to a Motion for

20 Summary Judgment and is RE-NOTED for consideration on May 11, 2007. Pleadings may be

21 filed in accordance with the Local Rules.

22 The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel

23 of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

24

25

26

27

28
ORDER
Page 2
 Case 3:06-cv-05631-RJB Document 61 Filed 04/19/2007 Page 3 of 3

1 Dated this 19th day of April, 2007.

A
2

3
Robert J. Bryan
4 United States District Judge
5

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ORDER
Page 3