Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02378/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02378-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation; and

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut

corporation,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation;

SETH RAVIN, an individual; and DOES 1

through 10 inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C15-02378 CRB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE

COURT’S ORDER DISMISSING FOR

IMPROPER VENUE

Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s

Order Dismissing for Improper Venue. See Plaintiffs’ Motion (dkt. 32); Fed. R. Civ. P.

59(e); Dismissal Order (dkt. 31). For the following reasons, the Court finds this matter

suitable for resolution without oral argument under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), VACATES the

October 9, 2015 hearing, and DENIES the Motion. 

Altering or amending a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) is an “extraordinary

remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial

resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). Alteration or

amendment of a judgment is appropriate if (1) the district court is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) the district court committed clear error or the initial decision was

Case 3:15-cv-02378-CRB Document 35 Filed 10/05/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist.

No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACand S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiffs’ assert that the Court “misapprehended” their position, see Plaintiffs’

Motion (dkt. 32) at 2, when the Court stated that because “no party has advocated for

transfer, the Court [may] find[] that dismissal is more appropriate.” See Dismissal Order

(dkt. 31) at 4–5 (citing Omnicell, Inc. v. Medacist Solutions Group, LLC, 272 F.R.D. 469,

477 (N.D. Cal. 2011)). According to Plaintiffs, they “expressed a clear preference in favor of

transfer over dismissal.” See Plaintiffs’ Motion (dkt. 32) at 2. Prior filings contradict this

assertion. The Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss argued over the course of

several pages that transfer was improper, concluding “[t]herefore, Travelers requests that the

Court retain jurisdiction over this action by holding that venue is proper . . . and that this

Court [should] deny Rimini’s Motion to dismiss as well as its request for the transfer of this

action to the District Court of Nevada.” See Opposition (dkt. 17) at 18. Plaintiffs’ thus fail

to show that the Court “committed clear error or [that] the initial decision was manifestly

unjust.” School Dist. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. 

Furthermore, whether “to dismiss for improper venue, or alternatively to transfer

venue to a proper court, is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court.” See

Omnicell, 272 F.R.D. at 472–73 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citing King v. Russell, 963 F.2d 1301,

1304 (9th Cir. 1992)). Dismissal was appropriate here for the reasons stated in the August

17, 2015 Order Dismissing for Improper Venue. See Dismissal Order (dkt. 31). The Court

thus VACATES the October 9, 2015 hearing, finding this matter suitable for resolution

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Alter or Amend the Court’s Order Dismissing for Improper Venue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2015 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02378-CRB Document 35 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 2