The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
Julie Barrera Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's January 5, 2012 Under Seal Order Granting Motion to Dismiss (Docket 138). The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. After considering the moving, opposing, and replying papers, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration.
The Court and the parties are familiar with the factual background of the case from the two rounds of motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs assert violations of §§ 14(a) and 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste, unjust enrichment, and insider
Generally, Plaintiffs seek damages and other relief based on the Director Defendants' alleged illegal promotion of Botox for off-label uses not approved by the FDA. On January 17, 2012, this Court granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint failed to establish demand futility ("Second MTD Order"). Plaintiffs now bring a Motion for Reconsideration, alleging that the Court failed to consider material facts.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) "provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of (1) mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) 'extraordinary circumstances' which would School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. Acands, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991)).
These grounds are further limited by the Local Rules. Local Rule 7-18 provides that a motion for reconsideration of a decision on any motion may be made only on the following grounds: "(a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision." L.R. 7-18. Finally, the Local Rule states that "[n]o motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion." Id.
Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court's Second MTD Order on the grounds that the Court failed to consider material facts because, in one instance, the Court cited to the summary of Allergan's 1997-2001 Strategic Plan (the ...