Motion to Reconsider/Vacate Summary Judgment in Washington

Background

“A court may relieve a party from a final judgment or order in the case of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, or irregularity.” (See CR 60(b)(1); In re Fancy (2009) 152 Wn. App. 1017.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“We will affirm a summary judgment if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Lipscomb v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Washington (2007) 174 P.3d 1182, 8.)

“We construe the facts and all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” (See id.)

“We do not consider arguments made on the first occasion in a motion for new trial, motion for reconsideration, or on appeal.” (See Trueax v. Ernst Home Ctr., Inc. (1994) 124 Wn.2d 334, 340, 878 P.2d 1208.) 

Furthermore, “new evidence may generally only serve as grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration when it is newly discovered and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial." (See CR 59(a)(4); Reed v. Brown, Consolidated No. 44151-9-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2014).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“An order on a motion to vacate is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (See Griggs v. Averbeck Realty, Inc. (1979) 92 Wn.2d 576, 582, 599 P.2d 1289; In re Fancy (2009) 152 Wn. App. 1017.)

“A trial court does not abuse its discretion when it refuses to consider a new theory raised for the first time in a request for reconsideration.” (See River House Dev. Inc. v. Integrus Architecture, P.S. (2012) 167 Wn. App. 221, 231, 272 P.3d 289; Robinson v. McCalla (In re Estate of Robinson), No. 80110-4-I, at *8 n.17 (Wash. Ct. App. July 27, 2020).)

“Nonetheless, an appellate court may more readily find an abuse of discretion when the court's determination results in the denial of a trial on the merits.” (See White v. Holm (1968) 73 Wn.2d 348, 351-52, 438 P.2d 581; In re Fancy (2009) 152 Wn. App. 1017.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “under CR 59, the trial court may decline to address arguments made for the first time on a motion for reconsideration, as long as the court does not abuse its discretion.” (See Reed v. Brown, Consolidated No. 44151-9-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2014).)

Additionally, “new theories of the case presented as part of a motion for reconsideration need not be considered.” (See Int'l Raceway, Inc. v. JDFJ Corp. (1999) 97 Wash.App. 1, 7, 970 P.2d 343 (1999); Hook v. Lincoln Cnty. Noxious Weed Control Bd. (2012) 166 Wash. App. 145, 158.)