Evans v. Hyatt Corporation

FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Aug 23, 2024 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON BRIAN EVANS, No. 1:24-CV-3119-MKD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION ANDAZ WAILEA RESORT & SPA, ECF No. 9 HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, CHRISTINA FRY, and DOES 1-10, 12 Defendants.

13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 9. For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion.

15 “Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “A district court may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(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.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch.

1 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)).

3 Upon review of Plaintiff’s motion, the Court concludes Plaintiff has failed to satisfy any of the three grounds for reconsideration as outlined in Smith. The Court also finds Plaintiff has not made a showing of his likelihood of success on the merits of his claims.

7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 9, is DENIED.

9 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this Order and provide a copy to Plaintiff.

11 DATED August 23, 2024.

12 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE