Patrick v. Trident Seafoods Corp.

675 F.Supp.3d 1104

Jenos PATRICK, Plaintiff, v. TRIDENT SEAFOODS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 23-cv-00004-DKW-KJM

United States District Court, D. Hawai'i

Signed June 5, 2023

Jay L. Friedheim, Iwilei Center, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.

Colin Folawn, Pro Hac Vice, Elizabeth A. Graves, Pro Hac Vice, Noah Jarrett, Pro Hac Vice, Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt, P.C., Portland, OR, Taylor W. Gray, Porter McGuire Kiakona LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant Trident Seafoods Corporation.

ORDER (1) DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, (2) GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS, AND (3) DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

Derrick K. Watson, Chief United States District Judge

Pending before the Court are (1) Defendant Trident Seafoods Corporation's (Trident) motion to dismiss or, alternatively, transfer venue (motion to dismiss), and (2) Plaintiff Jenos Patrick's motion for reconsideration of an order striking Patrick's response to the motion to dismiss (motion for reconsideration). Dkt. Nos. 22, 34.

As more fully explained below, Patrick presents no relevant reason for the Court to reconsider the striking of his untimely response to the motion to dismiss. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. As for the motion to dismiss, the Court agrees that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is an appropriate mechanism to enforce the forum selection clause that clearly applies to the claims brought in this action. The Court further finds that, in light of relevant case law, there is no basis for the Court to decline to enforce the forum selection clause. As a result, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Patrick re-filing it in an appropriate jurisdiction, as more fully discussed below.

BACKGROUND

On January 4, 2023, Patrick brought this action against Trident, various John Doe individuals and entities, and the vessel M/V Seattle Enterprise, O.N. (Enterprise) (collectively, Defendants). Dkt. No. 1. On January 13, 2023, Patrick filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC), the operative pleading here, against Defendants. Dkt. No. 7. Therein, Patrick alleged that he entered into an employment contract with Trident to work as a seaman on the Enterprise. Id. at ¶¶ 31, 42. During this employment, Patrick alleges that, inter alia, he suffered multiple physical injuries and did not get paid for work performed. Id. at ¶¶ 23-25, 29, 40. In light of these allegations, Patrick asserted the following claims: (1) negligence under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.; (2) "unseaworthiness" of the Enterprise; (3) maintenance and cure under maritime law; (4) infliction of emotional distress; (5) "accounting" of the voyage on which Patrick worked; and (6) failure to pay wages.

On March 22, 2023, Trident filed the pending motion to dismiss or, alternatively, transfer venue. Dkt. No. 22. Therein, Trident argues that the employment contract referenced in the FAC contains a forum selection clause requiring that any lawsuit arising out of Patrick's work for Trident must be brought in the federal or state courts of King County, Washington. Id. at 2-3. Because this Court is not a court of King County, Washington, Trident argues that this case should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Rule 12(b)(6)). Id. at 4-10. Alternatively, Trident asks for the case to be transferred to federal district court in King County, Washington, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Id. at 10-11.

On March 23, 2023, the Court scheduled a hearing on the motion to dismiss for June 2, 2023, with briefing pursuant to Local Rule 7.2. Dkt. No. 23. This meant that a response to the motion to dismiss was due by May 12, 2023—three weeks before the hearing date. See Local Rule 7.2.¹ A response, however, was not filed on or before May 12, 2023. Instead, on Sunday, May 14, 2023, Patrick filed a proposed stipulation between the parties that purported to provide Patrick until May 15, 2023 to file a response. Dkt. No. 30. A response, however, was not filed on or before May 15, 2023. Instead, on May 16, 2023, Patrick finally filed a response to the motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 31.²

On May 19, 2023, the Court struck the response because, even under Patrick's self-granted extension (that was never approved by the Court), his opposition brief was untimely and, in any event, the proposed stipulation provided no cause for the requested extension (May 19, 2023 Order). Dkt. No. 33. In addition, because the motion to dismiss was unopposed by any properly filed response, the Court vacated the June 2, 2023 hearing and took the motion to dismiss under advisement.

Finally, on May 21, 2023, Patrick filed the pending motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 34. Therein, without citing any applicable legal framework, Patrick asks for reconsideration of the May 19, 2023 Order, arguing that his response was filed 69 minutes late and his counsel have suffered from poor health. Id. at 2-3. Patrick also asserts that this Court should issue a so-called "Writ of Rachmones" or "Writ of Mercy" and should refer this case to the Hawai'i Supreme Court to determine if there is a strong public policy in this State "regarding the treatment of sailors recruited and hired" here. Id. at 3-4. On June 2, 2023, Trident filed an opposition to Patrick's May 21, 2023 motion, limited to Patrick's non-reconsideration-based contentions. Dkt. No. 35.

This Order now follows.

LEGAL STANDARDS

I. Motion for Reconsideration

A motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order, such as the May 19, 2023 Order challenged by Patrick, is governed by Local Rule 60.1. Pursuant to that Local Rule, a party may seek reconsideration of an interlocutory order in three circumstances: (1) discovery of new material facts not previously available, (2) an intervening change in law, or (3) manifest error of law or fact. Local Rule 60.1.

II. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss

Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes the Court to dismiss a complaint that fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Rule 12(b)(6) is read in conjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Pursuant to Ashcroft v. Iqbal, "[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). In addition, "the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions." Id. Accordingly, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Rather, "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955). Factual allegations that only permit the court to infer "the mere possibility of misconduct" do not show that the pleader is entitled to relief as required by Rule 8(a)(2). Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

When a complaint fails to state a plausible claim, leave to amend should be given when "justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). Justice does not require leave to amend when (1) it would prejudice an opposing party, (2) it is sought in bad faith, (3) it would produce an undue delay in litigation, (4) it would be futile, or (5) there has been repeated failure to cure a deficiency. Abagninin v. AMVAC Chem. Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742 (9th Cir. 2008); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006).

A court may consider certain documents attached to a complaint, as well as documents incorporated by reference in the complaint or matters of judicial notice, without converting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908-09 (9th Cir. 2003). Documents incorporated by reference include those upon which the complaint "necessarily relies" or the contents of which are alleged in the complaint, and may be considered where the document's authenticity is not in question, and there are no disputed issues as to the document's relevance. Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010).

DISCUSSION

I. Motion for Reconsideration

Patrick asks the Court to reconsider the May 19, 2023 Order, stating that he allegedly missed the purported May 15, 2023 response deadline by 69 minutes. Dkt. No. 34 at 2. Patrick states that missing the deadline was due to him trying to include a Table of Authorities in his submission. Id. Patrick further states that two of his counsel have suffered from "poor health," which has made it difficult for them to work. Id. at 3.

As an initial matter, in the motion for reconsideration, Patrick provides no explanation of how the foregoing explanations fit within any of the bases for reconsidering an interlocutory order set forth in Local Rule 60.1. In fact, Patrick does not even recognize that Local Rule 60.1 exists or, for that matter, that any relevant legal principle governs the motion for reconsideration. There is perhaps good reason for this, given that none of the explanations remotely fit within Local Rule 60.1's grounds for relief. First, Patrick does not contend that he has discovered new material facts that were not previously available. Second, Patrick does not contend that there has been a change in the law. And, third, Patrick points to no error of law or fact, let alone a manifest error, in the May 19, 2023 Order.³ The Court, therefore, finds no relevant basis for reconsidering the May 19, 2023 Order, and DENIES the motion for...