ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Van Eeghen International B.V.'s ("Van Eeghen") motion for reconsideration of the Court's May 21, 2007 Order denying Van Eeghen's motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction and based upon forum non conveniens; or in the alternative, for summary judgment/adjudication.*fn1 Doc. # 119. Plaintiff International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.'s ("IFF") and Defendant/Cross Defendant De Francesco & Sons, Inc. ("DFI") oppose the motion. Doc. ## 128, 130. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion for reconsideration is DENIED and its motion for summary judgment/adjudication is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.*fn2
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The factual background underlying this case is more fully outlined in the Court's previous order denying Van Eeghen's motion to dismiss. See Doc. # 61. This case involves contracts that Van Eeghen entered into with IFF to supply onion powder to IFF's wholly owned Dutch affiliate, International Flavors & Fragrances I.F.F. (Netherland) B.V. (hereinafter "IFF Netherlands"). Van Eeghen and IFF Netherlands are Dutch Companies with their principal place of business in the Netherlands. Pl's Opp., Doc. # 128, at 1-2. IFF is a New York Corporation with its principal place of business in New York City, New York. Id. at 1. Due to the global nature of IFF's business, IFF has established affiliates and subsidiaries worldwide. Id. at 2. IFF Netherlands is one such wholly owned subsidiary. Pl's First Amended Compl., Doc. # 77, ¶ 22.
Since the mid-1990s, Van Eeghen had purchased food products from DFI, a California Corporation with its place of business in Firebaugh, California. Pl's Opp. at 2. DFI manufactured the onion powder at issue in this case. Id. Between 2003-2005, IFF entered into contracts with Van Eeghaen that specified Van Eeghen must buy the onion powder from DFI. Id. IFF alleges that these contracts also stipulated that the onion powder could not be irradiated. Id.
In March 2005, IFF discovered that a batch of onion powder it received from Van Eeghen was irradiated. Id. at 3. DFI had blended irradiated onion powder with non-irradiated onion powder because poor weather and crop conditions led to a shortage of the non-irradiated powder. Id. DFI and IFF contend that an agent for Van Eeghen approved the inclusion of irradiated onion powder during one of his visits to DFI's California facilities. Id.
IFF argues it had a contract with Proctor & Gamble to provide seasonings, the specifications for which required that the seasonings not be irradiated. Pl's Opp. at 4. IFF asserts that because it provided irradiated seasonings to Proctor & Gamble, it became obligated to compensate Proctor & Gamble pursuant to contact for the damages. Id. Proctor & Gamble made a demand to IFF for compensation in the amount of $4,251,584.00. Id. IFF entered into a settlement agreement with Proctor & Gamble for payment of the claim related to Proctor & Gamble's use of the irradiated onion powder. Id. In addition, IFF argues it was forced to recall and destroy products containing the irradiated powder and as a result IFF has incurred over $6,500,000.00 in damages, exclusive of the money paid to Proctor & Gamble for settlement of its claims against IFF. Id.
On January 23, 2006, IFF filed suit against Van Eeghen and DeFrancesco in federal court in New York. In July 2006, that court transferred the action to the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1306(a). On October 30, 2006, DFI filed a cross claim against Van Eeghen, seeking equitable contribution and indemnification. On May 21, 2007, this Court denied Van Eeghen's motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction and based on forum non convenens. Doc. # 61.
i. Motion for Reconsideration Rule 54(b) States
[A]ny order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties' rights and liabilities.
However, E.D. Cal. L. R. 78-230(k) states, amongst other things, that a party moving for reconsideration must show:
[W]hat new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion, and why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion. "To succeed in a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision." Hansen v. Schubert, 459 F.Supp.2d 973, 998 (E.D. Cal. 2006); see also United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) ("A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a disagreement with the Court's decision, and ...