United States District Court, D. Idaho
MELALEUCA, INC., an Idaho corporation, and MELALEUCA CHINA WELLNESS PRODUCTS CO., LTD., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Melaleuca, Inc., Plaintiffs,
KOT NAM SHAN, an individual, and SHAKLEE CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye U.S. District Court Judge
matter comes before the Court on Melaleuca Inc.'s
(“Melaleuca”) Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt.
77) and Defendant Kot Nam Shan's
(“Kot's”) first, second, third, and fourth
Request for Judicial Notice. Dkts. 70, 73, 82, 92. These
Motions are fully briefed and ripe for decision. Having
reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the
facts and legal arguments are adequately presented.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and
because the Court finds that the decisional process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will
decide the Motions without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc.
Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons outlined below, the
Court DENIES Melaleuca's Motion for Reconsideration and
GRANTS Kot's four Requests for Judicial Notice.
case is primarily a breach of contract action. Melaleuca, an
Idaho corporation, and one of its subsidiaries, Melaleuca
(China) Wellness Products Co. Ltd. (“Melaleuca
China”), have sued Kot for breach of four different
employment contracts, identified and explained in the
Court's prior Memorandum Decision as “the 2010
Agreements” and “the 2011 Agreements.”
Melaleuca and Melaleuca China maintain Kot breached these
Agreements when he quit his job with Melaleuca China and,
shortly thereafter, joined Shaklee, one of Plaintiffs'
competitors in late 2017.
early 2018, Plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction to
prevent Kot from working for Shaklee while this litigation
was ongoing. At the same time, Shaklee and Kot separately
filed motions to dismiss. After the motions were fully
briefed, the Court held oral argument. On April 24, 2018, the
Court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order granting
Kot's Motion to Dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds
and forum non conveniens grounds. Dkt. 74. Accordingly, the
Court dismissed the claims against Kot and directed
Plaintiffs to refile its claims against Kot in China. The
Court denied Shaklee's Motion for Forum Non Conveniens
and, accordingly, Plaintiffs' two claims against Shaklee
for tortious interference with contract remain pending in
on March 21, 2018, and continuing until the present, Kot has
updated the Court regarding the legal action he has taken in
China regarding this dispute. Kot filed a “labor
arbitration action” against Melaleuca China before the
“Shanghai Labour and Human Resources Dispute
Arbitration Commission” seeking to invalidate the 2011
NonCompetition Agreement. In May, the Arbitration Commission
dismissed Kot's case. Thereafter, Kot filed a new case in
the Jing An District People's Court of Shanghai
City.That court held a hearing on June 26, 2018,
and plans to hold another hearing in August. All of Kot's
notices regarding these proceedings are the subject of
Kot's multiple Motions for Judicial Notice.
4, 2018, Melaleuca filed the pending Motion to Reconsider,
asking this Court to reconsider its decision to grant
Kot's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
Motions to Take Judicial Notice
Court may “take judicial notice of court filings and
other matters of public record.” Reyn's Pasta
Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th
Cir. 2006). The documents Kot asks this Court to take
judicial notice of are court filings in actions Kot has filed
in China and other matters of public record. Thus, they
appear to be properly subject to judicial notice. In
addition, Plaintiffs have not opposed Kot's Motions to
Take Judicial Notice. Accordingly, the Court finds it
appropriate to GRANT the Motions for Judicial Notice without
Melaleuca's Motion for Reconsideration
Court turns next to Melaleuca's Motion for
Reconsideration, in which it asks this Court to alter its
previous decision granting Kot's Motion to Dismiss for
Forum Non Conveniens.