Towner v. A Place for Rover Inc

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 MARK E. TOWNER, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00553-JNW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 10 A PLACE FOR ROVER INC., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Mark Towner moves for reconsideration of this Court’s order 14 denying him leave to file evidence on certain parties’ domiciles. Dkt. Nos. 87, 88. 15 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests 16 of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Est. of 17 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). “A district court may properly reconsider 18 its decision if it (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear 19 error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening 20 change in controlling law.” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th 21 Cir. 2013) (citation modified). 22 23 1 Towner asserts that he must submit this domicile-related evidence to oppose 9 Defendant Christopher Cook’s motion to dismiss because that motion challenges the

3 || existence of diversity jurisdiction. Thus, according to Towner, evidence of domicile is

4 || key. But Towner is incorrect about the nature of Cook’s motion. Cook’s motion does

5 not argue a lack of diversity among the parties. Rather, Cook’s primary arguments G are that Towner (1) failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and (2) 7 that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him because he is not domiciled in

Washington and lacks sufficient minimum contacts with Washington. 9 Accordingly, Towner has not shown that reconsideration is warranted, and

|| his motion is DENIED. Dkt. No. 87.

11 Dated this 10th day of September, 2025.

12 13 C = N. Whitehead United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23