Margitan v. Spokane County

1 Mar 21, 2023 2 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON ALLAN MARGITAN, married and acting individually, NO. 2:22-CV-0173-TOR Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION TO VACATE v. SPOKANE COUNTY, a municipal corporation, 12 Defendant.

14 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Court’s January 26, 2023 Order (ECF 17) Under Rule 59(e). ECF No. 19. This matter was submitted for consideration without oral argument, but Plaintiff requested oral argument.

17 ECF No. 19 at 1. The Court finds oral argument not warranted. LCivR 7(i)(3)(B)(iii). The Court has reviewed the record and files herein and is fully informed. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Court’s January 26, 2023 Order (ECF 17) Under Rule 59(e), ECF No. 19, is denied.

1 “A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be filed no later than 28 days after entry of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Here, Plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion was timely filed. ECF Nos. 18, 19.

4 Motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored. “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2009). “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263.

12 Plaintiff argues the Court committed clear error by reciting arguments used in his opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. See ECF No. 19. The Court laid out several bases for granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, including (1) Plaintiff’s constitutional claims fail where Plaintiff failed to allege a Spokane County policy or custom violated his constitutional rights, (2) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by accord and satisfaction, and (3) Plaintiff’s nuisance claim is barred by the statute of limitations. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff has not shown the Court has committed clear error, nor has he otherwise shown he is entitled to the requested relief.

1]; ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Court’s January 26, 2023 Order (ECF 17) 3 Under Rule 59(e), ECF No. 19, is DENIED.

4 The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and furnish 5|| copies to the parties. The file remains CLOSED.

6 DATED March 21, 2023.

DY 4f Ao ets 0. Kies 8 On Ke THOMAS O. RICE <> United States District Judge