City of Seattle v. Monsanto Co.

Full title: CITY OF SEATTLE, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Jul 13, 2023

2:16-cv-00107-RAJ (W.D. Wash. Jul. 13, 2023)

Opinion

2:16-cv-00107-RAJ

07-13-2023

CITY OF SEATTLE, Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”). Dkt. # 585. Having considered the Motion, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary. For the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored and will be granted only upon a “showing of manifest error in the prior ruling” or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the court's] attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local R. W.D. Wash. (“LCR”) 7(h)(1).

Defendants Monsanto Company, Solutia Inc., and Pharmacia LLC (“Defendants”) request that the Court reconsider the portion of its March 23, 2023 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 581) (“Order”). The Order dismissed Defendants' Affirmative Defenses 8, 9, and 13, which relate to time limitations. Defendants argue that they remain entitled to assert those defenses to the extent the City seeks to recover for alleged harm to its proprietary interests. Dkt. # 585 at 5-6.

This Court previously noted that “[i]n this action to restore the purity of its waterways, Seattle acts in its sovereign capacity.” Dkt. # 60 at 9. The Order granting Plaintiff's motion on the statute of limitations issue was based on this ruling. However, Defendants contend, and Plaintiff has later conceded, that the City may otherwise seek relief for proprietary harm and that the continuing tort doctrine resolves any statute of limitations issues. Dkt. # 518 at 38; id. at 64. Accordingly, the Court revises its ruling to permit Defendants to assert Affirmative Defenses 8, 9, and 13 against any claim asserted in the City's proprietary capacity.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. # 585.