From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scott's Trucking LLC v. Navistar, Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jan 27, 2023
No. C20-1841-RSM (W.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2023)

Opinion

C20-1841-RSM

01-27-2023

SCOTT'S TRUCKING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. NAVISTAR, INC., Defendant.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Scott's Trucking, LLC (“Scott Trucking”)'s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment. Dkt. #64. Plaintiff moves the Court pursuant to Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the Court's prior judgment dismissing this case “to correct a clear error and prevent manifest injustice.” Id. at 1. On September 7, 2021, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Navistar, Inc. (“Navistar”) as time-barred, finding that the applicable statute of limitations periods were not tolled for the pendency of the action because (1) Navistar did not waive its improper service defense through its participation the multidistrict litigation (“MDL”) in which this action was once a member case, and (2) an extension of Plaintiff's time to Navistar was not sufficiently justified. Dkt. #62. Plaintiff argues, as it did in its Response to Navistar's Renewed Motion to Dismiss, that Navistar waived its failure to serve argument by participating in the MDL for more than four years without raising the service issue and that the court improperly distinguished this case from Blankenship v. Kaldor, 114 Wn.App. 312, 57 P.3d 295 (2002), and Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29, 1 P.3d 1124 (2000). Dkt. #64 at 2-3.

A district court has considerable discretion when considering a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e). Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir. 2003). A motion for relief from judgment under Rule 59(e) should be granted when the Court: “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” In re Syncor ERISA Litigation, 516 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Vacating a prior judgment under Rule 59(e) is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

Here, Plaintiff does not offer newly discovered evidence or argue that there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Instead, it argues manifest error. Plaintiff essentially repeats the same arguments. Compare Dkt. #64 at 2-3, with Dkt. #60 at 3-7. Although the Court prefers to rule on the merits of cases rather than procedure, the outcome here is not manifestly unjust given the reasons set forth in its previous order. See Dkt. #62 at 5-9. Accordingly, relief under Rule 59(e) is not warranted.

Having reviewed the relevant briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, Dkt. #64, is DENIED.


Summaries of

Scott's Trucking LLC v. Navistar, Inc.

United States District Court, Western District of Washington
Jan 27, 2023
No. C20-1841-RSM (W.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2023)
Case details for

Scott's Trucking LLC v. Navistar, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SCOTT'S TRUCKING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. NAVISTAR, INC., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Date published: Jan 27, 2023

Citations

No. C20-1841-RSM (W.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2023)