Conger v. K & D Fisheries LLC et al

Filing 26

ORDER granting Defendants' 23 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court's prior Order reinstating Plaintiff's maintenance and cure (Dkt. # 22 ) is VACATED. Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer (Dkt. # 25 ) is GRANTED, and this case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the District of Alaska for resolution. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

HANNA V. CONGER,

8

Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11

K&D FISHERIES LLC, et al.,

12

Case No. C17-1270 RSM
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO
DISTRICT OF ALASKA

Defendants.

13
14

On October 20, 2017, this Court issued an Order reinstating Plaintiff’s maintenance

15

and cure. Dkt. #22. Shortly thereafter, Defendants moved for reconsideration, noting that they

16
17

have filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of this case for lack of

18

jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, transfer to the District of Alaska.1 Dkt. #23. The Court

19

directed Plaintiff to respond to the motion for reconsideration. Dkt. #24. Plaintiff has now

20
21

filed a motion to transfer, stating that while she has questions regarding appropriate

22

jurisdiction, in the interest of efficiency and judicial economy she agrees to a transfer of this

23

matter to the District of Alaska. Dkt. #25.

24

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, this Court has discretion to transfer this case in the interests

25
26

of convenience and justice to another district in which venue would be proper. See Jones v.

27
28
29
30

1

The motion for summary judgment is noted for consideration on November 17, 2017. Dkt.
#21.
ORDER– 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

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-05502BHS, 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.

ORDER– 2

1
2
3

4. This case is now CLOSED.
DATED this 26th day of October 2017.

4

A

5

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30

ORDER– 3