United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye, U.S. District Court Judge.
before the Court is Jefferson County's Motion for
Reconsideration. Dkt. 31. For the reasons set forth below,
the Court will allow Jefferson County to file a second Motion
for Summary Judgment in order to address new issues
improperly raised in the Motion for Reconsideration. This is
a more appropriate vehicle to assert these issues and will
allow Plaintiff Casey Bingham a more complete opportunity to
County moved for summary judgment on all counts on May 26,
2016. Dkt. 12. The Court heard oral argument on September 25,
2017, and took the matter under advisement. On September 29,
2017, in its Memorandum Decision and Order (Dkt. 30), the
Court dismissed Count I (the Whistleblower claim) as
untimely, but found sufficient controverted facts existed in
regards to Counts II, III, and IV to survive summary
County now asks the Court to revisit its ruling on Counts II
and IV. Jefferson County argues that the Court erred in some
respects, but also puts forth new and arguments in favor of
its position. Bingham takes issue with the form of Jefferson
County's Motion as well as the substance.
County believes the Court erred in its analysis and decision
to allow Counts II, III, and IV to remain after summary
judgment. Jefferson County's main concern is error on the
Court's part; however, it also alleges that Bingham has
not sufficiently pled a Monell claim as it
relates to her federal causes of action in Counts II and IV.
If the Court were to dismiss Counts II and IV, only Count
III-a state law claim-would remain, over which Jefferson
County urges the Court not to exercise jurisdiction.
Court notes that this Monell argument was not
brought to the Court's attention in a motion to dismiss,
or even in Jefferson County's Motion for Summary
Judgment, but rather only recently as part of the pending
Motion for Reconsideration. As Bingham correctly notes, this
argument was available to Jefferson County when it filed its
Motion for Summary Judgment and failing to raise the issue
earlier now seems like a waiver, or at the very least, a
second bite at the apple.
above aside, this Monell issue does appear relevant
and the Court must address what bearing it has on this case.
The Court however will not do so as a motion to reconsider.
Each party deserves an adequate opportunity to brief and
respond to this important, and possibly dispositive, topic
and although both parties mention it in the briefing, due
consideration must be given in a procedurally proper
avenue. Additionally, the Court will not take up
the other issues raised by Jefferson County in its Motion at
this time, but will do so as one decision after the parties
have fully briefed the Monell issue.
Court normally does not allow multiple motions for summary
judgment but for reasons now apparent, the Court will permit
a second motion for summary judgment on the limited issue of
County shall have 30 days from the issuance of this order in
which to file their motion. The traditional briefing schedule