Yamauchi Corporation v. Albany International Corporation
Filing
14
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: denying 10 Motion to Vacate; denying 11 Motion for Extension of Time to File. (twdb)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
O
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 13-1601-DOC (AJWx)
Date: August 21, 2013
Title: YAMAUCHI CORPORATION V. ALBANY INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Julie Barrera
Courtroom Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
None Present
N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTIONS
Before the Court are two motions: (1) Emergency Motion to Vacate Order on
Motion to Transfer Case (Dkt. 10) filed by Plaintiff Yamauchi Corporation; and (2)
Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition (Dkt. 11), also filed by Plaintiff. After
reviewing the relevant briefing, the Court hereby DENIES both motions.1
I.
Background
On July 22, 2013, Defendant Albany International Corporation filed a Motion to
Transfer (Dkt. 7) the case to the Northern District of New York. Defendant argued that,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this action
should be transferred to the Northern District of New York because:
1. The Central District of California is not the proper venue for this action,
since the Plaintiff is a Japanese corporation with no ties to this district,
and Plaintiff is an east coast-based corporation with no contact and no
relevant ties in this district;
1
The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed R. Civ. P. 78; L. R. 7-15.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 13-1601 (AJWx)
Date: August 21, 2013
Page 2
2. The action could have been brought in the Northern District of New
York, and a related case involving the same parties is ongoing in the
Northern District of New York;
3. Section 1404(a)'s “convenience and fairness” factors weigh in favor of
transfer, since New York is more convenient for relevant witnesses and
evidence, and is not any less convenient than California for Plaintiffs.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, Plaintiff’s opposition to this motion was due on
August 5, 2013. As of August 7, 2013, Plaintiff had not filed any opposition.
Accordingly, for good cause shown, and pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 (regarding the
Court's ability to grant motions as unopposed), the motion was granted as unopposed, and
this action was transferred to the Northern District of New York. See Minute Order (Dkt.
8).
II.
The Present Motions
On August 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed an “Emergency Motion to Vacate” the Court’s
order transferring this case and requesting the opportunity to present arguments in
opposition. Plaintiff argues that its failure to oppose was caused by an internal mix-up,
and Plaintiff believed that it had until August 12, 2013, to file opposition.
Plaintiff asks the Court to reconsider its previous order, but reconsideration
“offers an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and
conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d
877 (9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff argues that a failure to reconsider would “cause manifest
injustice to Yamauchi,” even though none of its briefing disputes Defendant’s original
contention that Plaintiff is a Japanese corporation with no current ties to the Central
District of California, and that no witnesses or evidence from either party will be located
in the Central District of California. Plaintiff’s U.S. sales office is located in Illinois.
Pl’s Proposed Opp’n (Dkt. 10-5) at 3. Defendant’s headquarters are in Rochester, New
Hampshire. Id. Plaintiff does not dispute that this action “could have [been] filed in the
Northern District of New York.” Id. at 9. Plaintiff’s main argument seems to be that the
Central District of California will be a marginally more convenient location than the
Northern District of New York for witnesses who live in Japan. See id. at 9-12.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. CV 13-1601 (AJWx)
Date: August 21, 2013
Page 3
The Court is not persuaded. After considering all briefing on the matter, the Court
finds that Plaintiff’s arguments in support its Motion to Vacate, and its proposed
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer, do not compel the reconsideration of the
previous order transferring the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate is
DENIED. Plaintiff’s other motion, which seeks an extension of time in which to file
opposition to Defendant’s original Motion to Transfer, is also DENIED.
The Clerk shall serve a copy of this minute order on counsel for all parties in this
action.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk: jcb
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
