UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 21, 2010
CARL ZEISS VISION INTERNATIONAL GMBH AND CARL ZEISS VISION INC., PLAINTIFFS,
SIGNET ARMORLITE, INC., DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
[Docket No. 664]
AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of this Court's March 1, 2010 Order striking Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on counterclaims IV, V and VII. Defendant filed an opposition to the motion, and Plaintiff filed a reply. The motion came on for hearing on April 16, 2010. Eric Weisblatt appeared and argued for Plaintiff, and Richard Schnurr appeared and argued for Defendant.
"Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Oregon v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Here, Plaintiff argues the Court should grant the present motion because the original order will result in manifest injustice. However, the Court disagrees.
Defendant requested that the Court strike Plaintiff's motion in its opposition brief, and the Court did so based on the conduct described in the Magistrate Judge's January 21, 2010 Report and Recommendation. Under these circumstances, it was not manifestly unjust for the Court to strike Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.