Opinion
CASE NO. C05-1408JLR.
January 25, 2007
ORDER
Before the court is a motion for reconsideration of the court's prior orders from Plaintiffs Jack, Susan, and Bernice Oltman (Dkt. # 61). The Oltmans essentially request that the court reconsider its prior order denying their first motion for reconsideration. For the following reasons, the court DENIES the motion.
The Oltmans request relief from the following orders and judgment: December 15, 2006 Order dismissing Susan Oltman's claim; December 18, 2006 Order denying Jack and Bernice Oltman's motion for relief from judgment; and December 18, 2006 Judgment dismissing all three claims as barred under the contractual statute of limitations.
Pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are disfavored, and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in the prior ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the attention of the court earlier, through reasonable diligence. Plaintiffs rely on the latter basis to support their motion. Plaintiffs request reconsideration of the court's order of dismissal because "Plaintiffs have now located the applicable law." Pl.'s Mot. at 7. Plaintiffs do not argue that the legal authority they now rely on could not have been brought earlier, only that they were unaware of it. To support the argument that this is "new" legal authority, Plaintiffs' counsel relies on two cases both of which were decided nearly 40 years ago. Accordingly, the court does not find that reconsideration is appropriate in this matter and DENIES the motion (Dkt. # 61).