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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

_______________________________________)

BARDY NGUYEN, )

) No. C06-0951RSL

Plaintiff, ) 

v. ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COMMUNITY HEALTH CARE ) OR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR

CLINIC (RENTON), ) ORDER

)

Defendant. )

_______________________________________)

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s filing styled as: “Cause; Reverse the

Dismissal As the Defendants Have Chosen to Mediate the Case” (Dkt. #25). The Court

considers plaintiff’s one-paragraph filing as both: (1) a motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s December 29, 2006 order (Dkt. #23) and judgment (Dkt. #24) dismissing plaintiff’s

claims; and (2) a motion for relief from judgment or order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

First, motions for reconsideration are disfavored in this district, 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 [the court’s]

attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). Plaintiff has not met her

burden under this rule. In her motion, plaintiff asserts that she “was never informed by the

courts [sic] that there was a hearing to dismiss my case. I was suppose [sic] to know.” See

Case 2:06-cv-00951-RSL Document 26 Filed 02/02/07 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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER -2-

Motion at 1. However, the Court is not persuaded by this assertion given that plaintiff

responded to defendant’s motion to dismiss on October 23, 2006. See Dkt. #15 (“Response to

Dismiss”). Furthermore, the Court concludes that there is no support for plaintiff’s claim that

“The defendants has [sic] already agreed and signed paperwork to go to mediation the first week

in February 07 and the case was to be settled this way.” See Motion at 1. As part of her motion,

plaintiff attached a copy of the parties’ November, 2006 Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan

including plaintiff’s handwritten note stating that “Because of needing ongoing medical [sic]

[mediation] [s]hould be set up Feb. 07 1st week.” See Motion at 3. The fact that the parties

selected mediation in their Joint Status Report as the desired alternative dispute resolution

process under Local Civil Rule 39.1 did not, however, create an obligation to resolve the dispute

by mediation. See, e.g., Local Civil Rule 39.1(a)(6) (“No party shall be bound by anything done

or said during such [ADR] proceedings unless a settlement or other agreement is reached.”). 

Because plaintiff has not shown manifest error in the Court’s December 29, 2006 order

dismissing her case or “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to [the

court’s] attention earlier with reasonable diligence” plaintiff’s filing is denied as a motion for

reconsideration.

Plaintiff has also not met any of the six categories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for relief

from the judgment or the order of dismissal in this case. In her motion, plaintiff has not shown:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered . . . ; (3) fraud . .

. misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) the judgment is

void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior

judgment upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no

longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any

other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Accordingly, plaintiff’s filing is denied as a motion for relief from

judgment or order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60.

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to “Reverse the Dismissal as the

Case 2:06-cv-00951-RSL Document 26 Filed 02/02/07 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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER -3-

Defendants Have Chosen to Mediate the Case” (Dkt. #25) is DENIED.

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00951-RSL Document 26 Filed 02/02/07 Page 3 of 3