From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Conger v. K&D Fisheries LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Oct 26, 2017
Case No. C17-1270 RSM (W.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. C17-1270 RSM

10-26-2017

HANNA V. CONGER, Plaintiff, v. K&D FISHERIES LLC, et al., Defendants.


ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO DISTRICT OF ALASKA

On October 20, 2017, this Court issued an Order reinstating Plaintiff's maintenance and cure. Dkt. #22. Shortly thereafter, Defendants moved for reconsideration, noting that they have filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of this case for lack of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, transfer to the District of Alaska. Dkt. #23. The Court directed Plaintiff to respond to the motion for reconsideration. Dkt. #24. Plaintiff has now filed a motion to transfer, stating that while she has questions regarding appropriate jurisdiction, in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy she agrees to a transfer of this matter to the District of Alaska. Dkt. #25.

The motion for summary judgment is noted for consideration on November 17, 2017. Dkt. #21. --------

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, this Court has discretion to transfer this case in the interests of convenience and justice to another district in which venue would be proper. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). Specifically, Section 1404(a) states:

For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of this statute is to "prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Pedigo Prods., Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-05502-BHS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12690, 2013 WL 364814, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2013) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616, 84 S. Ct. 805, 11 L. Ed. 2d 945 (1964)).

In the instant matter Defendants have requested a transfer to the District of Alaska, and Plaintiff not only agrees to, but has now affirmatively sought, the transfer of this case to the same District. Dkt. #25. Having reviewed the parties' briefing, the Declarations in support thereof, and the remainder of the record, the Court finds that transfer is appropriate.

Accordingly, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

1. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. #23) is GRANTED. The Court's prior Order reinstating Plaintiff's maintenance and cure (Dkt. #22) is VACATED. Nothing in this Order precludes Plaintiff from re-filing her motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska should she feel such action is necessary.

2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgement (Dkt. #21) is GRANTED IN PART, in that the Court will transfer this case to the District of Alaska.

3. Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer (Dkt. #25) is GRANTED, and this case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the District of Alaska for resolution.
4. This case is now CLOSED.

DATED this 26th day of October 2017.

/s/_________

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Conger v. K&D Fisheries LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Oct 26, 2017
Case No. C17-1270 RSM (W.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2017)
Case details for

Conger v. K&D Fisheries LLC

Case Details

Full title:HANNA V. CONGER, Plaintiff, v. K&D FISHERIES LLC, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

Date published: Oct 26, 2017

Citations

Case No. C17-1270 RSM (W.D. Wash. Oct. 26, 2017)