1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

BULENT ERTUR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROL L. EDWARD, et al.,

Defendants.

 NO. C05-1532JLR

 ORDER

 

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Bulent Ertur’s motion for

reconsideration (Dkt. # 19). Pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(h), motions for

reconsideration are disfavored, and 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.

On February 27, 2006, the court entered an order granting Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment (Dkt. # 17) and directing the clerk to enter judgment for Defendants. The

order disposed of Mr. Ertur’s legal malpractice claim against Defendant Carol Edward.

Although Ms. Edward presented numerous potential grounds for summary judgment, the

court focused on whether Mr. Ertur had created an issue of material fact over whether he

would have fared better in his immigration proceedings but for Ms. Edward’s alleged

malpractice. The court held that Mr. Ertur had failed to produce evidence from which a jury

Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 20 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER- 2

could conclude that he could have prevailed on a claim under the Violence Against Women

Act (“VAWA”) if Ms. Edward had made one on his behalf. 

In the instant motion, Mr. Ertur points to a notice of approval of his I-360 Petition for

Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant dated April 5, 2005. Mr. Ertur included this

single-page document in his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion, but he

provided no evidence to permit the court to assess the document’s significance to his

malpractice claim. Now, Mr. Ertur has included several hundred pages of additional evidence

indicating that the approval of his I-360 petition was in response to a lengthy application for

relief based on Mr. Ertur’s status as a spouse of a United States citizen under VAWA. The

new evidence suggests that there is at least a triable issue of fact over whether Ms. Edward

could have obtained relief for Mr. Ertur under VAWA. 

Mr. Ertur could have brought this evidence to the court’s attention when he opposed

Defendants’ summary judgment motion, but he did not. The court could exercise its

discretion to refuse to reconsider its prior order because Mr. Ertur failed to diligently bring

the evidence before the court. Only the court’s preference for deciding motions (particularly

dispositive motions) on their merits leads it to decide otherwise.

Pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. 7(h)(3), the court orders additional briefing. 

Defendants shall respond to Mr. Ertur’s motion for reconsideration no later than March 24,

2006. The response shall not exceed 12 pages, and shall address the following issues:

1) whether the approval of Mr. Ertur’s I-360 petition for relief under VAWA

creates a triable issue over whether Mr. Ertur would have obtained a more

favorable result in his immigration proceedings had Ms. Edward raised the

claim on his behalf; and

Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 20 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 ORDER- 3

2) whether, assuming Ms. Edward was negligent in declining to pursue VAWA

relief, Mr. Ertur’s opportunity to pursue such relief after her representation of

him ended is a complete bar to recovery on his malpractice claim.

Mr. Ertur may provide a reply of no more than six pages no later than March 31, 2006. 

The court cautions both parties to support any factual assertions with admissible evidence. 

Finally, the court notes that in Part IV of his motion for reconsideration, Mr. Ertur

asserts that the court has exhibited bias toward Mr. Ertur because he “has a foreign name,”

and his attorney has an “equally foreign name and foreign accent,” and because Ms. Edward

is a “local attorney.” Pltf.’s Mot. at 7. He requests that the court “recuse itself if it cannot

remain impartial between the parties.” Id. 

The court construes Mr. Ertur’s assertions as a request for recusal under Local Rules

W.D. Wash. GR 8(c). The court has considered the request, and declines to recuse itself

voluntarily. The court finds no basis for Mr. Ertur’s assertions of bias. The court notes that it

has never heard Mr. Ertur’s attorney’s voice, and thus could not have exhibited bias based on

his “foreign accent.” Pursuant to GR 8(c), the court refers Mr. Ertur’s request for recusal to

the Honorable Robert S. Lasnik, Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the

Western District of Washington.

The court directs the clerk to renote Mr. Ertur’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. # 19)

for March 31, 2006. The clerk shall also refer Mr. Ertur’s request for recusal to Chief Judge

Lasnik.

Dated this 13th day of March, 2006.

A 

JAMES L. ROBART

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01532-JLR Document 20 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3