Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing certain defendants based on a statute of limitations bar. The court held that Plaintiffs had not shown manifest error or presented new facts or legal authority that could not previously have been presented with reasonable diligence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiffs satisfied the standard for reconsideration of the prior order dismissing certain defendants based on the statute of limitations.
Holdings
- Plaintiffs did not establish manifest error or present new facts or legal authority that could not have been presented earlier with reasonable diligence; therefore, reconsideration of the prior dismissal order was not warranted.
Key quotations
“Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored.” (at 1)
“A motion for reconsideration should not be used to ask the court to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” (at 1)
Factual background
The Court had dismissed certain defendants based on a statute-of-limitations bar. In seeking reconsideration, Plaintiffs presented new facts, some outside the complaint and not appropriately subject to judicial notice, and legal arguments that could have been raised in earlier briefing.
Procedural history
The Court previously dismissed certain defendants from the action after concluding that Plaintiffs' claims against them were barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiffs then moved for reconsideration, relying on new facts and legal arguments; the Court denied the motion.