Hart v. Wesen
| Docket Number | C23-0309JLR |
| Decision Date | 28 November 2023 |
| Parties | CODY R. HART, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RONALD G. WESEN, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
Before the court is pro se Plaintiffs Cody Hart, Derrill Fussell, Kevin Ewing, Timothy Garrison, Steven Rindal, and Kathy LaFreniere's (collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion for reconsideration. (Mot (Dkt. # 64).) The motion, however, does not specifically identify any order for this court to reconsider. (See generally Mot.) Instead, the motion seeks “relief from judgments as delineated in Dockets # 45, 47, 51, and 56.” (Mot. at 1-2.) The cited docket entries are not court orders or judgments, but filings by various parties related to Defendant RLI Insurance Company's (“RLI”) multiple requests for attorneys' fees in this matter. Plaintiffs' motion also appears to relate to the court's November 3, 2023 order denying Plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment. (See 11/3/23 Order (Dkt. # 63) at 1-2 ( various post-judgment motions filed by Plaintiffs collectively as a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and denying the same); see also Mot. at 1 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).) Accordingly, the court construes the instant motion as either (1) an opposition to RLI's pending motion for attorneys' fees, or (2) a motion for reconsideration of the court's November 3, 2023 order denying Plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment. For the reasons discussed below, the court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion.[1]
The court first addresses Plaintiffs' arguments concerning attorney's fees. By way of background, RLI filed a motion for attorneys' fees on August 21, 2023, which the court struck without prejudice because RLI failed to properly serve Plaintiffs with a copy of the motion. (See 1st Mot. for Fees; 10/2/23 Order (Dkt. # 50) at 2.) On October 10 2023, RLI renewed its motion for attorneys' fees, and that motion remains pending before the court. (See 2d Mot. for Fees (noted for consideration on October 27, 2023).) The instant motion raises legal arguments related to attorney's fees and appears to oppose an award of attorneys' fees in RLI's favor. (See Mot. at 2-3 ().) The court therefore construes Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration as an untimely opposition to RLI's pending motion for attorneys' fees. Any opposition to RLI's motion was due no later than October 23, 2023. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d) (). Accordingly, the court DENIES Plaintiffs' motion to the extent it asks this court to consider untimely arguments in opposition to RLI's motion for fees.
The court next addresses Plaintiffs' request for reconsideration of the court's November 3, 2023 order. In that order, the court noted that Plaintiffs' claims: (1) arose from allegations that various Skagit County officials failed to obtain official bonds as required by state law; (2) raised only a generalized grievance and therefore failed to articulate an injury-in-fact sufficient to confirm standing; and (3) had therefore been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (11/3/23 Order at 2.) The court denied Plaintiffs' motion for relief from judgment, concluding that Plaintiffs had failed to show they meet any of the six grounds for such relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of that determination based on newly discovered evidence and alleged fraud. (Mot. at 2.)
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” and 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.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy,” and the moving party bears a “heavy burden.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) outlines six possible grounds for relief from a final judgment, including “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b),” and “fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2), (3). To obtain relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence, the moving party must show that (1) the evidence “in fact constitutes newly discovered evidence within the meaning of Rule 60(b),” (2) “the moving party exercised due diligence to discover this evidence,” and (3) the evidence is “of such magnitude that production of it earlier would have been likely to change the disposition of the case.” Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher Int'l, Inc., 31 F.4th 1124, 1136 (9th Cir. 2022) (quoting Feature Realty, Inc. v. City of Spokane, 331 F.3d 1082, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003)). To obtain relief from judgment based on fraud, “the moving party must establish that a judgment was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct, and that the conduct complained of prevented the moving party from fully and fairly presenting the case.” In re M/V Peacock, 809 F.2d 1403, 1404-05 (9th Cir. 1987).
Here, Plaintiffs seek reconsideration and relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence that they claim “was not available prior to the [court's] ruling” and “could not have been discovered [earlier] with reasonable diligence.” (Mot. at 2); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(2). Specifically, Plaintiffs describe “revelations” in a Skagit County Superior Court action which “highlight substantial violations of state and federal laws” by Defendant Richard Weyrich, “including the illegal appointment of deputies and performing official duties without a valid official bond.” (Mot. at 2 ().) Plaintiffs also seek reconsideration and relief from judgment based on alleged “fraud and misconduct” by Defendants “and their counsels,” who Plaintiffs claim concealed the fact that Mr. Weyrich “and his deputies were operating without the necessary bonds and oaths of office.” (Id.); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(3).
Plaintiffs identify neither manifest error in the court's prior order, nor facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the court's attention earlier with reasonable diligence sufficient to warrant reconsideration. Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1). To start, Plaintiffs' “new evidence” does not in...
To continue reading
Request your trial