United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ERIC KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of RUDIE KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, deceased, Plaintiff,
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
ASSOCIATION'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERSATION OF ORDER
DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL
J. BRYAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant National
Automotive Parts Association's (“NAPA”)
Motion for Reconsideration of Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. (“Motion for
Reconsideration”). Dkt. 246. The Court is familiar with
the record and filings herein and is fully apprised.
offers three arguments for reconsideration: “First, the
Order [Denying Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction (“Order”)] appears to have
mistakenly cited to inadmissible and incompetent evidence,
including hearsay, testimony of witnesses lacking personal
knowledge, and mischaracterizations in plaintiff's
brief.” Dkt. 246, at 1.
it appears the Court may have overlooked a key distinction
between branding or licensing a product and manufacturing or
distributing a product.” Dkt. 246, at 2.
the Order did not rule on NAPA's alternative request that
an evidentiary hearing be held to resolve any factual
conflict.” Dkt. 246, at 2.
District of Washington Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1) provides:
“Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court
will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing
of manifest error in the prior ruling, or a showing of new
facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to
its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” LCR
reasons set forth below, the Court should deny NAPA's
Motion for Reconsideration.
THE COURT CONSIDERED INADMISSIBLE AND INCOMPETENT
argument is without merit. “At the summary judgment
stage, we do not focus on the admissibility of the
evidence's form. We instead focus on the admissibility of
its contents.” Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1036
(9th Cir. 2003). The materials considered by the Court were
appropriate at summary judgment.
Court used language from Plaintiff's brief to the extent
that it fairly and conveniently described evidence at issue,
as considered in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. The
Court was fully apprised of the record and materials cited by
the Parties as it relates to the Order.
THE COURT OVERLOOKED A KEY DISTINCTION BETWEEN BRANDING
OR LICENSING A PRODUCT AND MANUFACTURING OR DISTRIBUTING A
argument is without merit. The evidence and arguments offered
by Plaintiff, viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff,
show that NAPA's activity in Washington went beyond
“merely licens[ing] the use of the ‘NAPA'
logo and trademark to its members and to certain authorized
supplies.” Dkt. 213, at 3. See Dkt. 223.
Viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the evidence
demonstrated that NAPA's activity in Washington included
not just the branding and licensing of a trademark, but also
manufacturing and distributing asbestos-containing products
that may have caused injury to Mr. Rudy Klopman-Baerselman.
THE COURT DID NOT RULE ON NAPA'S ALTERNATIVE REQUEST
FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING
Order, the Court inadvertently did not rule on NAPA's
alternative request for an evidentiary hearing. See
Dkt. 235. NAPA wrote in its ...