Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

July 1, 2019

ERIC KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of RUDIE KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
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 JURISDICTION

          ROBERT J. BRYAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS 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.

         NAPA 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.

         “Second, 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.

         “Finally, 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.

         Western 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 7(h)(1).

         For the reasons set forth below, the Court should deny NAPA's Motion for Reconsideration.

         1. THE COURT CONSIDERED INADMISSIBLE AND INCOMPETENT EVIDENCE

         NAPA's 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.

         The 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.

         2. THE COURT OVERLOOKED A KEY DISTINCTION BETWEEN BRANDING OR LICENSING A PRODUCT AND MANUFACTURING OR DISTRIBUTING A PRODUCT

         NAPA's 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.

         3. THE COURT DID NOT RULE ON NAPA'S ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING

         In the Order, the Court inadvertently did not rule on NAPA's alternative request for an evidentiary hearing. See Dkt. 235. NAPA wrote in its ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.