Watson v. Moger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA ERIC A. WATSON and SARAH M. CASE NO. 3:20-cv-05344-RBJ 11 WATSON, ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ 12 Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR PARTIAL v. RECONSIDERATION WARREN MOGER (SR), JANE DOE 14 MOGER (SR), and their marital community d/b/a MOGER YACT 15 TRASPORT, WARREN MOGER (JR), JANE DOE MOGER (JR), Defendants.

18 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Dkt. 22. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and opposed to the motion and the remaining file.

21 A. FACTS AND PROCEDURIAL HISTORY 22 This matter arises out of damage to Plaintiffs’ boat, which they allege Defendants caused while transporting the boat by truck from Southern California to Oregon. Dkts. 22 and 26.

1 Plaintiffs, some witnesses, and the boat are in Washington. Id. Defendants, some witnesses, and most of the transportation route are in California. Id. On August 7, 2020, Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue to California, arguing that California is the better venue to adjudicate this matter and that the interest in justice compels transfer. Dkt. 15. On September 16, 2020, the Court denied Defendant’s motion. Dkt. 21. On September 28, 2020, Defendants moved for reconsideration, alleging that new information had come to light that made transfer appropriate in accordance with W.D. Wash. Local Rule 7(h)(1). Dkt. 22. Defendants argue that new potential witnesses, who are California residents, have come forward, and that the convenience of these and other witnesses and the interest of justice compels transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 11 1404. Id.; Dkts. 23 and 24. On September 30, 2020, this Court requested Plaintiffs respond to Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, pursuant to LCR 7(h)(3). Dkt. 25. Plaintiffs responded on October 23, 2020. Dkt. 26.

14 B. DISCUSSION 15 Pursuant to LCR 7(h)(1), “[m]otions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”

19 While Defendants identify new potential witnesses who live in California, they do not demonstrate either manifest error in the Court’s underlying decision or that the discovery of new potential witnesses compels transfer. A district court has broad discretion according to “individualized case-by-case considerations of convenience and fairness” to decide whether to grant a motion to transfer. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2008).

1 Factors to consider include: (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the location of the property at issue, (3) the location of potential evidence and witnesses, (4) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, and (5) general notions of fairness. See id. On balance, these factors must “make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986).

7 In the underlying order denying Defendants’ motion to transfer, the Court found that the considerations, on balance, did not warrant upsetting Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. Dkt. 21.

9 Defendants did not then and do not now allege that witnesses would be unavailable to the Court in Washington, only that they may be inconvenienced. Either party and some witnesses will be inconvenienced regardless of whether venue lies in California or in Washington. Defendants, however, do not demonstrate that venue in Washington will create prejudice or be fundamentally unfair to them. As such, venue should remain in Plaintiffs’ chosen forum, the Western District of Washington. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Dkt. 22) should be denied.

15 IT IS SO ORDERED: 16 • Defendants’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration (Dkt. 22) is DENIED.

17 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

19 Dated this 27th day of October, 2020.

A ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge