Southern Wine and Spirits of Nevada v. Mountain Valley Spring Company, LLC
ORDER denying 26 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on December 15, 2008. (cnn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION SOUTHERN WINE AND SPIRITS OF NEVADA, A Division of Southern Wine and Spirits of America, Inc. VS. MOUNTAIN VALLEY SPRING CO., LLC ORDER Now on this 15th day of December, 2008, comes on to be considered plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Order Granting CASE NO. 08-6100 DEFENDANT
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 26).
The Court, being
well and sufficiently advised, finds and orders as follows with respect thereto: 1. On November 10, 2008, the Court1 entered an order in
which it granted the defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 17) and transferred this case from the Texarkana Division to the Hot Springs Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas. 2. (Doc. 24.)
On November 25, 2008, plaintiff filed the current motion
to reconsider, asserting that the Court "fail[ed] to follow its own precedent of giving great weight to the plaintiff's choice of forum
The order was entered by the Honorable Harry F. Barnes, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. Following entry of this order, the case was reassigned to the undersigned. Page 1 of 2
and permit[ted] Defendant to rewrite the forum selection clause." (Doc. 26 at pg. 1.) 3. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not mention
motions for reconsideration. The Eighth Circuit has held that such motions are considered "`nothing more than Rule 60(b) motions when directed at non-final orders'" such as the one at issue. Elder-
Keep v. Aksamit, 460 F.3d 979, 984 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Anderson v. Raymond Corp., 340 F.3d 520, 525 (8th Cir. 2003)). 4. order for Rule 60(b) authorizes a court to grant relief from an reasons such as mistake, inadvertence, surprise,
excusable neglect, or newly discovered evidence. P. 60(b)(1)-(2).
See Fed. R. Civ.
None of these circumstances are asserted here.
Further, the Court fully considered the factors relevant to the transfer of venue, including the parties' forum-selection clause, and the plaintiff's arguments that the Court erred in its analysis of these factors is not convincing. 5. Based on the foregoing, plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider
(Doc. 26) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN JIMM LARRY HENDREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 2 of
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?