Towner v. A Place for Rover Inc

Opinion

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

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

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

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) that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over him because he is not domiciled in

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

his motion is DENIED. Dkt. No. 87.

Dated this 10th day of September, 2025.

C = N. Whitehead United States District Judge