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

STACIA ALLEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDUCATIONAL COMMUNITY CREDIT

UNION, et al., 

Defendants.

No. C06-0016P

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

DIVERSIFIED FINANCIAL

CONCEPTS, INC.’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Diversified Financial Concepts, Inc.’s

Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 25). The Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion for

Reconsideration. Under Local Civil Rule 7(h), Plaintiff must bring new arguments or evidence to the

Court’s attention in order to cause the Court to reconsider its previous ruling. The Court finds that

Defendant has not met this requirement in the instant case. Accordingly, the Court must DENY

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Defendant Diversified Financial Concepts (“DFC”) argues that the Court’s Order on its

motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 23) contains “manifest error” because it held that under the

plain language of RCW §49.6.040(10), Defendant, a financial service provider, is a place of public

accommodation. Defendant claims that the cases that this Court cited outside of this jurisdiction were

not on point and were relied on too heavily by this Court. The Court, however, looked to those cases

only as persuasive authority in the absence of definitive authority in this jurisdiction as to whether or

not a financial service provider is a place of public accommodation. In examining the precedent of

Case 2:06-cv-00016-MJP Document 28 Filed 07/20/06 Page 1 of 2
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 

other jurisdictions employing their own statutes, this Court found that the trend among sister courts

was to consider financial institutions and banks to be places of public accommodation.

Defendant also criticizes this Court’s refusal to rely on Fell v. Spokane Transit Authority, 128

Wn. 2d 618 (1996), to grant 12(c) dismissal in favor of Defendant. While Fell does address the issue

of what constitutes a “place of public accommodation” under RCW §49.6.040(10), the ruling in that

case was not relevant to the case at hand because it dealt with plaintiffs who were suing a government

entity for alleged failure to provide adequate transit services to disabled citizens. The Fell court’s

admonishment that the “mandate to provide access to places of public accommodation is not a

mandate to provide services” resulted in a denial of the plaintiffs’ claim in that case because there was

no fixed place within the Spokane transit system to which the Fell plaintiffs were being denied

access–rather the plaintiff alleged that they were being denied paratransit services. 128 Wn.2d at 638

(emphasis added). 

By contrast, in the case at hand, Defendant DFC was offering its services at a fixed location to

which Plaintiff alleges that she was denied full and equal access because of Defendant’s employee’s

reaction to her sex. The Court found that this allegation states a claim upon which relief may be

granted and does not change its opinion on reconsideration. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is

DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this order to all counsel of record. 

Dated: July 19, 2006.

A

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00016-MJP Document 28 Filed 07/20/06 Page 2 of 2