Roush et al v. Akal Group of Companies, LLC, No. 2:2017cv00358 - Document 56 (E.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S 48 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Defendant has not shown that the Court committed clear error or that granting the motion for reconsideration is warranted on any other basis. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (SG, Case Administrator)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Roush et al v. Akal Group of Companies, LLC Doc. 56 1 2 3 FI LED I N THE U.S. DI STRI CT COURT EASTERN DI STRI CT OF WASHI NGTON 4 Jan 28, 2019 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 7 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK RONALD W. ROUSH and JAMES H. HUNTER, NO: 2:17-CV-358-RMP 8 Plaintiffs, 9 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. 10 11 AKAL GROUP OF COMPANIES, LLC, doing business as Akal Security, Inc., 12 Defendant. 13 14 BEFORE THE COURT is a motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 48, by 15 Defendant Akal Security, Inc. (“Akal”) of the Court’s denial of Defendant’s prior 16 motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, motion to 17 transfer to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. See also 18 ECF Nos. 26 (Defendant’s motion to dismiss) and 46 (Order denying motion to 19 dismiss). Plaintiffs Ronald Roush and James Hunter, proceeding pro se in this 20 matter, responded in opposition to Defendant’s motion, ECF No. 54, and Defendant 21 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 replied, ECF No. 55. Having reviewed the parties’ filings, the remaining record, and 2 the relevant law, the Court is fully informed. 3 4 BACKGROUND The Court previously found that specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant 5 exists on the basis that Defendant purposely directed activity relevant to the claims 6 at issue in this case at the Eastern District of Washington. Specifically, the Court 7 found that Defendant “specifically reached out by telephone to Plaintiffs and other 8 individuals in Eastern Washington to interview them for potential employment and 9 solicit materials from them demonstrating their qualifications and experience.” ECF 10 No. 46 at 9. In dispute for purposes of Plaintiffs’ tortious misappropriate and 11 intentional infliction of emotional distress claims is “the propriety of [Defendant’s] 12 use of those materials related to securing the TSA contract.” Id. 13 Defendant moves for reconsideration on the basis that the Court committed 14 clear error in finding Defendant’s contacts with this forum sufficient for personal 15 jurisdiction in light of a Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 271 (2014), because Plaintiffs’ 16 “mere status as Washington residents” is not a sufficient basis upon which to assert 17 jurisdiction over Defendant. ECF No. 55 at 4. Defendant further asserts that the 18 Court erroneously credited as true allegations that Plaintiffs were in Washington 19 when they received the initial telephone call from Defendant and that Defendant 20 knew that Plaintiffs were in Washington when Defendant initially reached out to 21 Plaintiffs. Id. at 2. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 2 1 Plaintiffs argue that Defendant raise for the first time in its motion for 2 reconsideration “that there is no allegation or record evidence that Plaintiffs were in 3 Eastern Washington at the time [Defendant] contacted them.” ECF No. 54 at 2. 4 Plaintiffs also maintain that Plaintiff’s allegations that they were domiciled in 5 Washington when Defendant reached out to them are in the Plaintiffs’ amended 6 complaint, ECF No. 20, and Plaintiffs’ response to the motion to dismiss, ECF No. 7 31, and that Defendant itself filed as exhibits in this record the letters of intent sent 8 to Plaintiffs at their Washington addresses in September 2012, ECF Nos. 26-3 and 9 26-4. Id. at 3. With respect to the Court’s legal conclusions, Plaintiffs argue that 10 Defendant’s argument regarding “minimum contacts” under Walden, 571 U.S. 271, 11 is merely a repetition of the same argument that the Court previously considered in 12 resolving the motion to dismiss, inappropriately raises new arguments in a motion to 13 reconsider, and that the Court rightly determined that Defendant’s conduct was 14 aimed at Washington. Id. at 3. 15 16 LEGAL STANDARD A motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 59(e) should not be 17 granted, “absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented 18 with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or . . . there is an intervening 19 change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 20 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A litigant may not use a motion for reconsideration “to raise 21 arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 3 1 been raised earlier in the litigation.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 2 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). In addition, “[a] motion for reconsideration cannot be used 3 to ask the Court to rethink what the Court has already thought through merely 4 because a party disagrees with the Court’s decision.” Collegesource, Inc. v. 5 Academyone, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164550, at * 2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2015). 6 “Granting a motion for reconsideration is a matter of judicial discretion and is 7 considered to be an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 8 finality and conservation of judicial resources.’” United States v. Bamdad, 2017 9 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197727, at *13 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 2017) (quoting Carroll v. 10 Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)). 11 12 DISCUSSION The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant could have, and should have, 13 previously raised the argument that there was insufficient evidence in the record to 14 support that Plaintiffs were in Washington when Defendant initially contacted them. 15 See Kona Enters., Inc., 229 F.3d at 890. Nonetheless, Defendant’s new argument 16 does not undermine the Court’s finding that the record supports that Defendant 17 directed its conduct at Washington, as Defendant does not dispute that the 18 documentation attached to Defendant’s motion to dismiss supports that Defendant 19 mailed the letters of intent to Plaintiffs at their Washington addresses. ECF Nos. 26- 20 3 and 26-4. 21 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 4 1 With respect to Defendant’s argument that the Court’s order was marred by a 2 clear error of law, the Court thoroughly addressed Defendant’s arguments whether 3 minimum contacts were present under Walden in its prior order and finds no 4 justification to revisit that analysis based on Defendant’s instant motion. The Court 5 did not conclude that specific jurisdiction was based solely on alleged injury to 6 Plaintiffs as residents of the forum state. Rather, the Court found that Defendant’s 7 activities were expressly aimed at the forum state in part because all of the “Key 8 Personnel” in the copy of the bid proposal were from Washington, and four out of 9 six personnel in an “Akal Program Management Organizational Chart” are Eastern 10 Washington residents. ECF No. 46 at 4 (citing ECF No. 41 at 17, 19). Those 11 documents, combined with the letters of intent sent to Plaintiffs in Washington, 12 support a conclusion that Defendant intentionally recruited individuals from Eastern 13 Washington and, thus, purposefully directed its activities at the forum, rather than 14 merely interacting with Plaintiffs as two individuals who happen to reside in 15 Washington. Defendant’s arguments in the motion for reconsideration do not 16 undermine that Eastern Washington was a focal point of Defendant’s recruitment 17 efforts in preparation for submitting the bid proposal. 18 Defendant has not shown that the Court committed clear error or that granting 19 the motion for reconsideration is warranted on any other basis. 20 / / / 21 / / / ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 5 1 2 3 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 48, is DENIED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel and to Plaintiffs. DATED January 28, 2019. 6 7 s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ~ 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
