Opinion
2:22-cv-01078-RSL
03-19-2024
TERRI BROOKS-JOSEPH, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SEATTLE, SEATTLE CITY LIGHT, LOURDES PODWALL and JOHN DOE PODWALL and the marital community composed thereof, SUSAN DAVIDSON and JOHN DOE DAVIDSON and the marital community composed thereof, BRITT LUZZI and JOHN DOE LUZZI and the marital community composed thereof, SHARON HUNTER and JOHN DOE HUNTER and the marital community composed thereof, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Robert S. Lasnik, United States District Judge
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's “Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. # 64). Defendant City of Seattle filed a motion for summary judgment on August 8, 2023. Dkt. # 18. On October 5, 2023, the Court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed plaintiff's claims. Dkt. # 62. Plaintiff timely filed a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(h)(2). Dkt. #64.
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the Court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR 7(h)(1).
Manifest error is “‘plain and indisputable'” and “‘amounts to a complete disregard of the controlling law or the credible evidence in the record.'” Santiago v. Gage, No. 3:18-CV-05825-RBL, 2020 WL 42246, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2020) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 622 (9th ed. 2009)).
Upon reviewing plaintiff's motion, the Court finds plaintiff has not met her burden. Plaintiff cannot point to manifest error. She reiterates facts and arguments she presented in her initial response to defendant's motion. Any new facts plaintiff now raises bear no relation to the discriminatory claims she asserts. Therefore, plaintiff's “Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment” (Dkt. # 64) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.