Rey et al v. Rey et al

Filing 61

ORDER denying 58 Motion for Reconsideration by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7

JEAN PIERRE REY and ILZE
8 SILARASA,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.

10
11

CASE NO. C14-5093 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

MICHEL REY, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Jean Pierre Rey and Ilze
14
Silarasa’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for reconsideration (Dkt. 58).
15
On June 2, 2014, the Court granted Defendants Builders Surplus Northwest, Inc.,
16
Nevawa, Inc., Michel Rey, Renee Rey, US Growing Investments, Inc., US Investment
17
Group Corporation, and Visitrade, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss. Dkt. 51. On
18
June 16, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 58.
19
Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule CR 7(h), which provides
20
as follows:
21
22

Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily
deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the

ORDER - 1

1

prior ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not
have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.

2
Local Rule CR 7(h)(1).
3
In this case, Plaintiffs (1) argue that the Court committed manifest error and (2)
4
submit new facts that could not have been brought to the Court’s attention earlier. Dkt.
5
58. First, the Court did not commit manifest error in determining the legal question
6
presented. The Court concluded that compliance with the previous contracts must be
7
resolved before Plaintiffs’ current claims can be resolved. Dkt. 51 at 3–4. That
8
conclusion is not clearly erroneous.
9
Second, the Court also did not commit manifest error by resolving a factual
10
dispute. Plaintiffs cite a recent opinion from this Court in which the Court concluded that
11
there was a question of fact regarding the enforceability of a forum selection clause. Dkt.
12
58 at 3 (citing Moxley v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. W., LLC, 2013 WL 6813856 (W.D.
13
Wash. Dec. 24, 2013)). In Moxley, the plaintiff alleged that defendants fraudulently
14
signed her name to the contract containing the forum selection clause, which is a question
15
that must be resolved before the contract may be enforced. Id.; see also Manetti-Farrow,
16
Inc. v. Gucci America, Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 515 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Forum selection clauses
17
are prima facie valid, and are enforceable absent a strong showing by the party opposing
18
the clause that enforcement would be unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause [is]
19
invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching.”) (internal quotation omitted)).
20
Plaintiffs’ allegation that the contract in question was never “implemented” fails to
21
overcome the clause’s prima facie validity. Moreover, failure to “implement” is not an
22

ORDER - 2

1 issue regarding formation of the contract in question. Such an allegation sounds more as
2 an issue regarding performance and/or breach.
3

Third, Plaintiffs submit new facts in support of Plaintiffs’ position that the

4 previous contract was never implemented. Dkts. 59 & 60. That position, however, has
5 already been rejected by this Court as irrelevant to the issue of the enforceability of the
6 forum selection clause.
7

Finally, Plaintiffs assert that it is inequitable to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims because

8 they now have no protection over the assets in question. Dkt. 58 at 5. They, however,
9 admit that enforcement of an order from a Swiss court is possible. Dkt. 58 at 5.
10 Moreover, Plaintiffs did not request that this Court stay the action pending resolution of
11 the Swiss proceeding. While such an action is within the Court’s discretion, the Court
12 will not sua sponte implement a stay.
13

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated this 19th day of June, 2014.

A

16
17

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3