Alice Bossart & Raymond Berry v. County of King

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ALICE BOSSART & RAYMOND CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00975-JNW BERRY, in pro per, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 v. 11 COUNTY OF KING, a subdivision of the state of Washington, Defendant.

Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration comes before the Court. Dkt. No. 39.

“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored,” LCR 7(h)(1), and “‘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.’” Marlyn Natraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). “Whether . . . to grant reconsideration is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003).

1 Plaintiffs argue that the Court misapplied the law in its order denying their previous motion to vacate judgment. See Dkt. No. 38. Plaintiffs have not presented newly discovered evidence, demonstrated clear error, or identified an intervening |/change in controlling law. And on review of the record, the Court is satisfied that it applied the correct law and did not commit legal error.

G Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Dkt. No. 39.

8 Dated this 21st day of January, 2026. ° Bak be — 10 amal N. Whitehead United States District Judge