Defendant National Automotive Parts Association (NAPA) filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of the order denying the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, putting forth three arguments:
- The order appeared to have mistakenly cited to inadmissible and incompetent evidence
- The court may have overlooked a key distinction between branding or licensing a product and manufacturing or distributing a product
- The order did not rule on NAPA’s alternative request that an evidentiary hearing be held to resolve any factual conflict
Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1) provides: “Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior ruling, or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”
The court did not find a showing of manifest error or any new facts, and subsequently denied all of NAPA’s arguments.
Read the case decision here.