2:23-cv-01620
W.D. Wash.Jan 10, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Jane Doe moved for reconsideration after the court denied her motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) intended to prevent Defendant Blake Riad-James Maso from absconding with her daughter.
- Plaintiff relied on a 2021 California custody order and a Texas Vital Statistics certification to assert her right to custody.
- The court found that the California custody order expired in July 2021 and that the Texas certification was not a custody order.
- Plaintiff argued that her daughter had been moved to an unknown location since filing the TRO motion, but did not provide new evidence of unlawful conduct by Defendant.
- The court questioned its own subject matter jurisdiction and advised Plaintiff that alleged related claims may be better suited for state court.
- Plaintiff clarified her claims regarding the alleged distribution of intimate recordings and website content, but did not present manifest error or significant new facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continued Custody Order Validity | Custody order and Texas certification support entitlement | (Impliedly contests validity) | Custody order expired; certification insufficient |
| Irreparable Harm from Potential Absconding | Daughter moved to unknown location; possible harm | (Not directly stated) | No plausible or supported evidence of harm |
| Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over All Claims | Entitled to full custody; all claims related | (Implied challenge) | Jurisdiction doubts remain; better suited for state court |
| Basis for Reconsideration | Court made manifest errors; factual clarifications offered | (Not directly stated) | No manifest error or new facts; motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873 (9th Cir. 2009) (motions for reconsideration are granted only in "highly unusual circumstances")
- 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 1999) (standard for reconsideration centered on manifest error or new facts)
- Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) (reconsideration cannot be used to present arguments or evidence available earlier)
- Navajo Nation v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation, 331 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003) (reconsideration is at the discretion of the court)