GRIFFIN v. THE BOEING COMPANY

Case No. 13-38 RAJ.

ELLEN GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant.

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

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrim
Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Ellen C. Griffin, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by William B. Stafford , PERKINS COIE & James Sanders , PERKINS COIE.


ORDER

RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.

On June 25, 2015, this Court entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant, the Boeing Company ("Boeing"). Dkt. ## 91, 92. Plaintiff appealed this order on July 15, 2015. Dkt. # 95. Two days after filing her notice of appeal, on July 18, 2015, she filed a motion for reconsideration of the underlying order dismissing her case. Dkt. # 96. She then filed an amended motion for reconsideration on July 21, 2015. Dkt. ## 98, 101. The Court denied her motion for reconsideration for several reasons: 1) Plaintiff had already filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, thereby divesting this Court of jurisdiction, 2) Plaintiff's motion was filed after the deadline, and 3) upon consideration of the merits the Court found that Plaintiff failed to meet her burden. Dkt. # 104.

On June 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second motion for reconsideration. Dkt. # 110. If her initial motion for reconsideration and amended motion for reconsideration were procedurally defunct, then, even more so, is this one. To reiterate its last Order, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed this current motion after having appealed to the Ninth Circuit, and this motion was filed nearly a year after the Court's Order granting Boeing's motion for summary judgment. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(2) ("The motion shall be filed within fourteen days after the order to which it relates is filed.").

However, even if this Court were to once more excuse the procedural defects, the Court concludes that the motion for reconsideration is without merit. "Motions for reconsideration are disfavored." LCR 7(h). "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." LCR 7(h)(1). Plaintiff's instant motion for reconsideration neither demonstrates manifest legal error, nor does it direct the Court to new facts or legal authority that she could not have presented previously in opposition to Boeing's motion. There is nothing in Plaintiff's instant motion that persuades the court its prior decision was incorrect. Accordingly, Plaintiff's second motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 110) is DENIED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases