Robinson v. Tacoma Community College

Full title: BARBARA STUART ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. TACOMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma

Date published: Sep 29, 2011

CASE NO. C11-5151BHS (W.D. Wash. Sep. 29, 2011)

Opinion

CASE NO. C11-5151BHS.

September 29, 2011

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

BENJAMIN SETTLE, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Barbara Stuart Robinson's ("Robinson") motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 90). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 3, 2011, Robinson filed a complaint against Defendant Tacoma Community College ("TCC") alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131- 65; § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), 29 U.S.C. § 794; and RCW 49.60.030. Dkt. 5.

On August 8, 2011, TCC filed a motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 80. Robinson responded that same day. Dkt. 81. On August 29, 2011, TCC replied. Dkt. 86. Robinson filed a supplemental pleading that same day. Dkt. 87.

On September 27, 2011, the Court granted TCC's motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 89. On September 28, 2011, Robinson filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 90.

II. DISCUSSION

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides as follows:

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).

In this case, Robinson argues that the Court committed manifest error in granting TCC's motion for summary judgment because the Court failed to address her claims for violations of 45 C.F.R. § 84.4. Dkt. 90. The Court addressed Robinson's claims because 45 C.F.R. § 84.4 is the Department of Health and Human Services' rules promulgated pursuant to the RA. Thus, concluding that Robinson failed to submit evidence that she was a qualified person under the RA encompassed any cause of action Robinson may have had under 45 C.F.R. § 84.4.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Robinson's motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 90) is DENIED.