Darren Michael Brin v. Joshua Hartwick, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 DARREN MICHAEL BRIN, CASE NO. C24-1019JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. JOSHUA HARTWICK, et al., Defendants.

15 Before the court is pro se Plaintiff Darren Michael Brin’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion for reconsideration of the court’s October 23, 2025 order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and imposing case terminating sanctions. (MFR (Dkt. # 103); 10/23/25 Order (Dkt. # 101); MTD (Dkt. # 86).) Reconsideration under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy . . . to be used sparingly[.]” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). “Indeed, ‘a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Id. (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h)(1) ( “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored[.]”). The court has reviewed Mr. Brin’s motion and concludes that he has not identified newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in law that would justify reconsideration of the October 23, 2025 order. (See generally MFR.) Therefore, the court DENIES Mr. Brin’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 103).

8 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025.

A JAMES L. ROBART 10 United States District Judge