Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

International Fruit Genetics LLC v. P.E.R. Asset Management Trust

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 22, 2012

INTERNATIONAL FRUIT GENETICS, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
P.E.R. ASSET MANAGEMENT TRUST; PIETER EDUARD RETIEF REDELINGHUYS N.O., in his capacity as trustee for the time being of the P.E.R. ASSET MANAGEMENT TRUST; and DEBORAH MARY REDELINGHUYS N.O., in her capacity as trustee for the time being of the P.E.R. ASSET MANAGEMENT TRUST, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [77]

          HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Pieter Redelinghuys, Deborah Redelinghuys, and P.E.R. Asset Management Trust (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 77.) On April 20, 2016, the Court GRANTED Plaintiff International Fruit Genetics, LLC (“IFG”) Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIED Defendants’ Partial Motion for Summary Judgment (“Order”). (ECF No. 73.) After careful consideration of the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the instant Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Until recently, Defendants were an approved licensee of IFG for certain table grape plant varieties in South Africa. This case arises from Defendants’ theft, illegal importation, and excessive-propagation of IFG’s proprietary plant materials, in violation of the parties’ licensing agreements. The Court found that, though their actions, Defendants breached the plain language of the licensing agreements and that IFG validly terminated the agreements. (ECF No. 73.)

         On April 29, 2016, Defendants filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 77.) IFG filed an opposition on May 13, 2016. (ECF No. 78.) In essence, Defendants contend that the Court failed to consider whether parties modified the agreements by course of conduct and whether IFG had a duty to act in good faith when rejecting Defendants’ cure.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         “Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[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.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Furthermore, a motion “may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc., 571 F.3d at 880 (internal quotation marks omitted).

         Pursuant to Local Rule 7-18, a motion for reconsideration may be made only on the grounds of

(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. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         Defendants’ request that the Court reconsider its Order because they claim that the Court did not consider two material facts: (1) that the Testing, Planting, and Marketing Agreements (the “Agreements”) between the parties were modified by a course of conduct between the parties over a number of years and (2) that, with respect to the illegal importation of Sugar Crisp, IFG had a duty to act in good faith and as a reasonable person when evaluating and rejecting Defendants’ cure. (Mot. 2.) As discussed below, this is simply not the case.

         A. Course of Conduct

         Here Defendants allege, as they did in their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, that because the agreements were modified by a course of conduct between the parties, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.