Harris v. Air Transport District 143 International Association of Machinis...Aerospace Workers et al Doc.

4
Case 2:05-cv-01824-JLR Document 4 Filed 11/28/2005 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7 AT SEATTLE
8
9 GEORGE HARRIS,
10
Plaintiff,
11 CASE NO. C05-1824JLR
v.
12 MINUTE ORDER
AIR TRANSPORT DISTRICT 143
13 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
14
MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE
WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 1040
15 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE
16 WORKERS,
17 Defendants.
18
19 The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable
20 James L. Robart:
21 In response to the court’s November 14, 2005 order dismissing this action for lack
22
of subject matter jurisdiction, Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration (Dkt. # 3). Plaintiff
23
seeks leave to file an amended complaint that attempts to state a basis for this court’s
24
jurisdiction. He also asks that the amended complaint relate back to the November 3,
25
2005 filing date of his original complaint in this action.
26
27 Pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. CR 7(h)(1), motions for reconsideration are

28 disfavored, and will ordinarily be denied unless there is a showing of (a) manifest error in

MINUTE ORDER - 1

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 2:05-cv-01824-JLR Document 4 Filed 11/28/2005 Page 2 of 2

1 the prior ruling, or (b) facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to the
2 attention of the court earlier, through reasonable diligence. Plaintiff has not made either
3
showing in his motion. He simply alleges that he mistakenly failed to state his bases for
4
federal jurisdiction in his original complaint. Absent exceptional circumstances, the court
5
cannot grant a motion for reconsideration to correct a plaintiff’s mistake. The court
6
therefore denies Plaintiff’s motion.
7
8 The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s amended complaint, however, and finds that it

9 facially states a basis for federal jurisdiction. The court grants Plaintiff leave to file the
10 amended complaint. Because Plaintiff has not served Defendant with any document in
11 this case, the court declines to rule on whether the amended complaint relates back to the
12
original complaint. When Plaintiff serves Defendant, it directs the court to provide
13
Defendant with copies of all pleadings in this action, including Plaintiff’s motion for
14
reconsideration and this order. The court will consider the “relation back” issue if, after
15
service, one of the parties raises it in a proper motion.
16
17 As stated above, the court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt.

18 # 3), but grants Plaintiff leave to file his amended complaint.

19 Filed and entered this 28th day of November, 2005.
20
21 BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

22 s/Mary Duett
23 By
Deputy Clerk
24
25
26
27
28

MINUTE ORDER - 2