Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada v. Van Well Nursery Inc

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 May 07, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 10 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT 11 OF CANADA AS REPRESENTED BY NO. 2:20-CV-00181-SAB 12 THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE 13 AND AGRI-FOOD, a Canadian 14 governmental authority, 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION 17 VAN WELL NURSERY, INC., a FOR RECONSIDERATION 18 Washington Corporation, MONSON 19 FRUIT COMPANY, INC., a Washington 20 Corporation, GORDON GOODWIN, an 21 individual, and SALLY GOODWIN, an 22 individual, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 457. 26 The motion was heard without oral argument. Plaintiff is represented by Alyssa 27 Orellana, Jennifer Bennett, Daniel Short, Michelle Fischer, Cary Sullivan, and 28 John O’Donnell. Defendant Van Well Nursery is represented by Kent Doll and 1 Katie Ross and Tim Billick. The Goodwin Defendants are represented by Quentin 2 Batjer and Tim Billick. Defendant Monson Fruit is represented by Mark Walters, 3 Mitchell West and Miles Yanick. 4 Motion Standard 5 Motions for reconsideration are generally governed by Fed R. Civ. P. 59(e) 6 (motion to alter or amend judgment) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (motion for relief 7 from judgment). “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is 8 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial 9 decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in 10 controlling law.” Multnomah Cty, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 11 1993). 12 The “purpose of summary Judgment is to pierce the pleadings and to assess 13 the proof in order to see whether there is genuine need for trial.” Matsushita Elec. 14 Indus. Col., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation 15 omitted). A court may grant summary judgment sua sponte to a nonmoving party, 16 if, drawing all inferences in favor of the moving party, there are no genuine issues 17 of material fact, and the non-moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a 18 matter of law. Gonzales v. CarMax Auto Superstores, LLC, 840 F.3d 644, 654 (9th 19 Cir. 2016). Where, as here, Defendants moved for summary judgment, in which 20 they argued there are no genuine issues of material fact for the jury to decide and 21 asked the Court to find in their favor as a matter of law, intuitively the moving 22 party has been given reasonable notice that the sufficiency of their claim will be in 23 issue. Any other conclusion leads to absurd results. 24 In this case, in reviewing Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, in 25 which Defendants argued there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding 26 whether Plaintiffs’ claims were timely, it became clear to the Court that no 27 reasonable jury, after hearing the evidence presented by Defendants in their motion 28 and viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to Defendants, would conclude that Plaintiffs’ claims were untimely. To the extent the Court erred in finding that AAFC’s claims were not based Monson’s packing of Glory in 2014, that finding was not dispositive in the Court’s finding that no reasonable jury would find that AAFC could have learned 5|| of the packing of Glory through reasonable diligence before May 18, 2017. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 457, is DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 9)| this Order and to provide copies to counsel. 10 DATED this 7th day of May 2025. 11 12 13 14 byt Sect 6 Stanley A. Bastian 4 Chief United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

OARNEPR NENVING MATION ENR PECOANCINER ATION . 2