1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7
AT TACOMA
8
JEFF S. MILLHEISLER, et al., CASE NO. C19-5194RBL
9
Plaintiffs, ORDER
10 v.
11 TACOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.
10,
12
Defendant.
13
14
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Millheisler’s Motion for Reconsideration
15
[Dkt. # 22] of the Court’s Order [Dkt. # 20] Granting Defendants TSD’s Motion for Summary
16
Judgment [Dkt. # 15]. Millheisler’s 40-page motion does not address TSD’s arguments, or the
17
Court’s Orders, or the timeline that is relevant to his current claims. His timeline dates back more
18
than a decade, and in some instances precedes his prior, dismissed lawsuit. Millheisler does not
19
address any of TSD’s arguments or the Court’s analysis of his claims under the facts and the law.
20
Under Local Rule 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and will ordinarily
21
be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the ruling, or (b) facts or legal
22
authority which could not have been brought to the attention of the court earlier, through
23
reasonable diligence. The term “manifest error” is “an error that is plain and indisputable, and
24
1 that amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the
2 record.” Black's Law Dictionary 622 (9th ed. 2009).
3 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of
4 finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
5 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly
6 unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence,
7 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn
8 Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Neither
9 the Local Civil Rules nor the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, which allow for a motion for
10 reconsideration, is intended to provide litigants with a second bite at the apple. A motion for
11 reconsideration should not be used to ask a court to rethink what the court had already thought
12 through — rightly or wrongly. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.
13 Ariz. 1995). Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration,
14 and reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been
15 presented at the time of the challenged decision. Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co., 363 F.
16 Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005). “Whether or not to grant reconsideration is committed to
17 the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima
18 Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).
19 Millheisler’s Motion does not meet this high standard. It ignores the reasons for the
20 underlying motion (the expiration of Millheisler’s FMLA leave, his indefinite absence from his
21 //
22 //
23
24
1 job, and the absence of any indication that he could ever return) and the Court’s Order.
2 The Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED, and the matter is closed.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 Dated this 4th day of March, 2020.
5 A
6
Ronald B. Leighton
7 United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.