Conklin v. University of Washington Medicine, C18-0090RSL. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20180716d14
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jul. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration." Dkt. # 116. Plaintiff asserts that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the merits of his claim under RCW 70.41.235 and the irreparable harm he will likely suffer if injunctive relief is not granted. 1 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only upon a "showing of manifest error in
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration." Dkt. # 116. Plaintiff asserts that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the merits of his claim under RCW 70.41.235 and the irreparable harm he will likely suffer if injunctive relief is not granted. 1 Motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district and will be granted only upon a "showing of manifest error in ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration." Dkt. # 116. Plaintiff asserts that the Court overlooked or misapprehended the merits of his claim under RCW 70.41.235 and the irreparable harm he will likely suffer if injunctive relief is not granted.1 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). Plaintiff has not met his burden. The motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.
FootNotes
1. With regards to irreparable harm, plaintiff asserts that trial is not likely to occur in June 2019 as scheduled because discovery is stayed pending resolution of defendants' motions to dismiss. Dkt. # 116 at 2. The Court has not stayed discovery, however. A pending motion to dismiss does not automatically give rise to a stay and, now that the parties have conducted their Rule 26(f) conference, they may pursue discovery until February 3, 2019, as set forth in the case management order (Dkt. # 98).
Source: Leagle
