Plan Administrator of the Chevron Corporation Retirement Restoration Plan v…

Background

The defendants and cross-defendants, Anne Minvielle and Leon Minvielle, moved for reconsideration of the court’s earlier order denying their motion to change venue. They did not identify the legal authority for their reconsideration motion, and they had not first obtained the court’s permission to file one, as required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(a).

The earlier order had denied transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer when the interests of justice and convenience favor another federal district. The court had considered the parties’ choice of forum, convenience of the parties and witnesses, access to evidence, familiarity with the applicable law, possible consolidation with other claims, local interest, court congestion, and the expected time to trial.

The court had found that the factors did not sufficiently favor transfer to the Western District of Louisiana. It noted that the Minvielles were in that district, but Martin Byrnes said he did not have counsel there and might need to hire new local counsel. The court also found that witnesses could be in Louisiana, California, and London; that relevant evidence could be in all three locations; and that either proposed venue would inconvenience witnesses located elsewhere. Because the case concerned benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the court found that both federal courts were familiar with the applicable law. It also considered the similarity between this case and another case pending before the same judge and found that separate venues could duplicate judicial work. Finally, it found that transfer could delay resolution because both cases had already been pending in the Northern District of California.

Arguments for Reconsideration

The Minvielles argued that the court had failed to consider witnesses they identified in Louisiana. They also argued that both cases should be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana and consolidated there, where they said most doctors and lay witnesses resided.

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, reconsideration may be based on a material factual or legal difference that the moving party could not reasonably have known earlier, newly emerged material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. The rule also does not allow a party to reargue points previously presented or offer information that could reasonably have been presented earlier.

Ruling

The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It first stated that the motion should be denied because the Minvielles had not obtained permission to file it. The court also considered the motion’s merits and found no basis for reconsideration. The Minvielles acknowledged that their earlier motion had lacked detailed information about the Louisiana witnesses, so the additional information was not shown to be newly available. The court further found that the witnesses and consolidation arguments did not change its earlier conclusion that transfer would not serve the interests of justice. Accordingly, the court DENIED the Minvielles’ motion for reconsideration.