Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast
- Donna Ryu
- 4:13-cv-05472
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Erickson Productions v. Kraig Kast, Judge Ryu denied Kast’s request to seek reconsideration of the courthouse-transfer ruling.
Kraig Rudinger Kast, who sought reconsideration and a transfer to the San Francisco Division, and the plaintiffs, whose opposition to the motion was accepted by the court.
What happened
In Erickson Productions Inc. v. Kraig Rudinger Kast, the court had previously denied Kast’s request to move the case from the Oakland courthouse to the San Francisco courthouse. Kast, who represented himself, said San Francisco was closer and more accessible for him and his witnesses.
Kast then asked for permission to seek reconsideration, presenting additional claims about travel time, transportation, health problems, and financial hardship. The court said these facts were not newly discovered because Kast could have presented them with his original transfer request, and he provided no supporting evidence.
Judge Ryu denied Kast’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The case therefore remained assigned to the Oakland Division under this order.
The detailed version
- Erickson Productions Inc v. Kraig R Kast · No. 4:13-cv-05472
- Donna Ryu
- June 30, 2023
Background
The Ninth Circuit had reversed an earlier judgment awarding Erickson Productions, Inc. and Jim Erickson $450,000 in statutory damages for Kraig Kast’s willful copyright infringement and sent the case back for a jury trial on willfulness and statutory damages. After the case returned to the district court, Kast asked to move the action from the Oakland Division to the San Francisco Division of the Northern District of California. He argued that the San Francisco courthouse was closer to him and more accessible by public transportation.
The court denied that transfer request on May 19, 2023, finding that Kast had not shown that he or another party or witness would face difficulty or hardship appearing in Oakland. Kast then filed another motion under several local rules, seeking relief from that order and asking again for a transfer. The court treated the filing as a request for permission to file a motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9. Kast was representing himself.
Analysis
Local Rule 7-9 permits reconsideration of an earlier, nonfinal order only on narrow grounds, including a material difference in facts or law that could not reasonably have been known earlier, newly emerging material facts or a change in law, or the court’s failure to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments previously presented. The rule does not allow a party to repeat arguments that were already made or to present facts that could have been submitted the first time.
Kast described his additional information as new material facts. He asserted that he did not own a car, depended on public transportation, would save more than an hour each way by traveling to San Francisco, had health problems that limited his ability to walk, and faced financial hardship. He also referred to unspecified witnesses in several counties who would allegedly have difficulty traveling to Oakland. Kast again did not identify where he lived or identify particular witnesses, and the opinion states that he submitted no evidence supporting the factual assertions. The court concluded that these facts could have been presented with his original transfer motion and therefore were not newly discovered evidence under the local rule.
Disposition
The court held that Kast’s filing merely reargued his original transfer request with additional unsupported facts. It denied Kast’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. This order did not itself decide the underlying copyright damages issues; it addressed only reconsideration of the earlier courthouse-transfer ruling.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.