North Sails Group LLC v. Boards & More Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: January 14, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-03112
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jan 14, 2020 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 NORTH SAILS GROUP, LLC, a No. 1:19-cv-03112-SAB 9 Delaware limited liability company, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 BOARDS & MORE GmbH, an Austrian ORDER DENYING 13 limited liability company, BOARDS & PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 14 MORE, INC., a Washington corporation, RECONSIDERATION 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 46. 18 Plaintiff is represented by Brian G. Bodine, Kathryn E. Garipay and Per de Vise 19 Jansen. Pursuant to LR7.1(i)(3)(B)(iii), the Court has determined that oral 20 argument is not warranted. 21 Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its ruling that the Court does not have 22 personal jurisdiction over Defendant Boards & More, GmbH. Plaintiff argues the 23 Court erred in not finding that Fed. Rule Civ. P. 4(k)(2) provides federal 24 jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s motion is without merit. 25 Rule 59(e) provides an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 26 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. 27 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). It is well 28 settled that “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 1 unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 2 evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the 3 controlling law.” Id. (citing 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 4 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Because of this and contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, 5 Defendants’ failure to respond does not waive its right to object to the Motion for 6 Reconsideration. 7 Plaintiff has not presented the Court with newly discovered evidence. Nor 8 has Plaintiff argued there is an intervening change in the law. Rather, Plaintiff 9 asserts the Court committed clear error. 10 As the Ninth Circuit explained,

11 The exercise of Rule 4(k)(2) as a federal long-arm statute requires the 12 plaintiff to prove three factors. First, the claim against the defendant must arise under federal law. Second, the defendant must not be 13 subject to the personal jurisdiction of any state court of general 14 jurisdiction. Third, the federal court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction must comport with due process. 15 Pebble Beach Co. v. Caddy, 453 F.3d 1151, 1159 (9th Cir. 2006).

16 It is Plaintiff’s burden to show the Court has jurisdiction over Defendants. 17 Id.at 1154. Thus, Plaintiff’s assertions that Defendants are required to identify 18 another state where the suit can proceed is incorrect. In its Order, the Court 19 concluded Plaintiff could not meet the third prong, namely that “Plaintiff’s 20 Lantham Act claims are not related to Defendant’s B&M Austria’s sales to B&M 21 USA.” ECF No. 43. That finding precludes personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. 22 P. 4(k)(2) and Plaintiff has not convinced the Court it committed clear error in 23 making that finding. 24 Moreover, the Court concluded additional discovery on this issue would not 25 be helpful because the record was sufficiently developed for it to rule on the 26 question of federal jurisdiction. As such, Plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional 27 discovery was not granted. 28 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 2 l. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 46, is DENIED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order and forward copies to counsel. 5 DATED this 14th day of January 2020.

| Oe. 9 £ Li as. 10 Stanley A. Bastian I United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22) 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING PT AINTIFE’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2