*1 Case 2:05-cv-01241-CRW Document 32 Filed 11/14/05 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE STEVEN D. McABOY, for himself and as Personal Representative of the Estate of JEAN McABOY, a single person,
Case No. C05-1241L Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v.
IMO INDUSTRIES, et al. ,
Defendants. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Reconsideration of this Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand and Attorneys Fees” (Dkt. # 31). Plaintiff argues that this Court’s decision is contrary to Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999). The facts in Murphy involved a party arguing that the removal time period is triggered before service, while this Court’s order held that the removal time period could be triggered a short time after service of process to an agent. Although this Court is amenable to reconsidering a decision, the language presented from Murphy is devoid of the relevant context and, when properly contextualized, provides feint support for plaintiff’s position. Moreover, this type of argument was addressed in the previous order. Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand and Attorneys Fees at 3 n.2. Finally, while plaintiff’s policy arguments are not without some merit, plaintiff fails to argue why section 278 of the
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION *2 Case 2:05-cv-01241-CRW Document 32 Filed 11/14/05 Page 2 of 2 Restatement (Second) of Agency should selectively not apply in this context.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
DATED this 14th day of November, 2005.
A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
-2-