Burleson v. Security Properties Residential, LLC, C18-0513RSL. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20191120g63
Visitors: 11
Filed: Nov. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Nov. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . On November 4, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline for joining additional parties. The Court found that: This case is eighteen months old and, following two amended complaints and two rounds of motions to dismiss, involves a single cause of action under the Fair Housing Act against the four named defendants. Dkt. # 85 at 3. Plaintiff knew at least eight weeks before the joi
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . On November 4, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline for joining additional parties. The Court found that: This case is eighteen months old and, following two amended complaints and two rounds of motions to dismiss, involves a single cause of action under the Fair Housing Act against the four named defendants. Dkt. # 85 at 3. Plaintiff knew at least eight weeks before the join..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
On November 4, 2019, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline for joining additional parties. The Court found that:
This case is eighteen months old and, following two amended complaints and two rounds of motions to dismiss, involves a single cause of action under the Fair Housing Act against the four named defendants. Dkt. # 85 at 3. Plaintiff knew at least eight weeks before the joinder deadline that she wanted to add additional parties (Dkt. # 101 at 2), yet no motion was filed by the deadline set by the Court or by the extended date proposed by plaintiff. Plaintiff has not shown good cause or excusable neglect for an extension of the joinder deadline.
Dkt. # 107 at 3. The Court also noted that the delay caused by late joinder would adversely impact all remaining case management deadlines. Id. at 2. Plaintiff filed a timely motion for reconsideration, arguing that justice requires that she be permitted to add four new defendants and that any adverse impact on the existing case management schedule can be alleviated by bifurcating the matter into two discovery periods and two trials, the first involving the existing defendants and the second involving the newlyadded defendants. Dkt. # 108.
Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time was denied because she had not shown good cause or excusable neglect for her delay in seeking to join additional defendants. Her recent submission does not remedy that problem, and the Court rejects plaintiff's proposed case management procedure as duplicative and burdensome.
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 108) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
