Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Redwind v. Western Union, LLC

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

March 16, 2017

SAGE REDWIND, Plaintiff,
v.
WESTERN UNION, LLC, Defendant.

          OPINION & ORDER

          JOHN V. ACOSTA United States Magistrate Judge

         Pro se plaintiff Sage Redwind (“Redwind”) seeks reconsideration of the court's order granting in part the Bill of Costs filed by defendant Western Union, LLC (“Western Union”). (ECF No. 203.) For the reasons that follow, the court denies Redwind's motion but grants a stay on the award of costs until resolution of Redwind's appeal in this case.

         Background

         Redwind initiated this lawsuit against Western Union, alleging employment discrimination, harassment, discriminatory pay practices, retaliation, and defamation. (ECF Nos. 1, 3, 12.) The court granted Western Union's motion for summary judgment on all of Redwind's claims, following extensive discovery. (ECF No. 188.) Redwind currently is appealing the court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (ECF No. 194.)

         Western Union, as a prevailing party, sought $13, 425.37 in costs, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 54. (ECF No. 190.) Redwind opposed the cost award, arguing Western Union is not a prevailing party because the court granted summary judgment in error. (ECF No. 195 at 2.) Redwind also objected to specific costs as non-recoverable. (Id. at 3-11.) Redwind did not make any policy-based arguments against awarding costs. (See Id. at 2.) The court awarded Western Union $10, 619.87 in costs. (ECF No. 202.)

         Standards

         I. Motion for Reconsideration.

         A court may reconsider prior orders under Rules 59(e) or 60(b). Sch. Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “[A] motion for reconsideration should accomplish two goals: (1) it should demonstrate reasons why the court should reconsider its prior decision and (2) set forth law or facts of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Holdner v. Coba, No. 3:15-cv-2039-AC, 2016 WL 4210776, at *1 (D. Or. Aug. 8, 2016) (quoting Romtec, et al. v. Oldcastle Precast, Inc., 08-06297-HO, 2011 WL 690633, at *8 (D. Or. Feb. 16, 2011)). Rule 60(b) allows reconsideration for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

         Under Rule 59(e), reconsideration is available “when (1) the court committed manifest errors of law or fact, (2) the court is presented with newly discovered or previously unavailable evidence, (3) the decision was manifestly unjust, or (4) there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Rishor v. Ferguson, 822 F.3d 482, 491-92 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011)). A party may not use a motion for reconsideration to raise new arguments or offer new evidence in a motion for reconsideration, if the arguments or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.