UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 25, 2011
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF,
SYNTELLECT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.
SYNTELLECT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, COUNTERCLAIMANT, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, COUNTERDEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Roger T. BenitezUnited States District Judge
SYNTELLECT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ORDER DENYING
Syntellect, Inc., moves for reconsideration of the order on the cross motions for summary judgment. Reconsideration of a previous order is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources." Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). "[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law." Id. (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).
The fact that the opinion by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama was vacated in accordance with a stipulation of the parties (one of which was Syntellect), does not constitute an intervening change in controlling law, as Syntellect asserts. The decision was not controlling. Moreover, its reasoning has not lost its persuasive force. Syntellect also argues that this Court made a decision "outside the adversarial issues presented to the court." It did not. Finally, the Court declines the invitation of Southern California Gas Company to order Syntellect to show cause why it should not be sanctioned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for filing the motion for reconsideration.
The motion for reconsideration is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.