Opinion
21-35774
10-31-2022
ERIC A. WATSON; SARAH M. WATSON Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WARREN MOGER, Sr., DBA Moger Yacht Transport; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 27, 2022 [**] San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05344-RJB Robert J. Bryan, District Judge, Presiding
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Eric and Sarah Watson, a married couple, appeal from the district court's summary judgment in favor of Defendants Moger Yacht Transport, et al., (MYT) in an action regarding liability for the Watsons' damaged boat. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a district court's summary judgment de novo and a denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion. Edgerly v. City &Cnty. of San Francisco, 599 F.3d 946, 960 (9th Cir. 2010); Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of MYT because the Watsons failed to establish a triable issue as to whether MYT had properly limited its liability under the Carmack Amendment or the wood hull release agreement executed by the parties. Although Plaintiffs claim that they are facing discrimination, retaliation, and injustice, they failed to offer cognizable, significant probative evidence that demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact regarding these allegations. Richards v. Neilsen Freight Lines, 810 F.2d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 1987). Conclusory statements without specific factual support are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Surrell v. California Water Serv. Co., 518 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2008).
The district court also properly exercised its discretion in denying the Watsons' motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment. To be granted a motion for reconsideration, under the Western District of Washington Local Rule 7(h)(1), a party must show a manifest error in the prior ruling or new facts or legal authority that could not have been brought earlier with reasonable diligence. Again, the Watsons failed to provide support for their statements that a "huge error was made" and that Defendants "intentionally lied to the court" with new, specific facts or legal authority, which is insufficient for Rule 7(h)(1). Their best argument is that Defendants intentionally sent them only part of the written wood hull release agreement to deceive Plaintiffs, but, even if that is the case, Plaintiffs could have raised this issue earlier with reasonable diligence. Plaintiffs do not offer sufficient non-conclusory, specific evidence to warrant holding that the district court abused its discretion.
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).