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.

MyGo, LLC v. Mission Beach Industries, LLC

United States District Court, S.D. California

April 13, 2017

MYGO, LLC, a California corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
MISSION BEACH INDUSTRIES, LLC, a California corporation, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY [ECF No. 31.]

          Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge

         Before the Court is Defendant and Counterclaimant Mission Beach Industries, LLC's (“Defendant's” or “MBI's”) motion for reconsideration of the Court's January 31, 2017 Order denying Defendant's motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination of United States Patent No. 9, 383, 630 (“the ‘630 Patent”). (Dkt. No. 31.[1]) Plaintiff and Counterdefendant MyGo, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “MyGo”) does not oppose the motion. (Dkt. No. 32.) The Court deems MBI's motion suitable for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). Having reviewed the moving papers and the applicable law, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS MBI's motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 31.)

         BACKGROUND

         In a previous order, the Court recited the facts of this case at length and will therefore not repeat them here. (See Dkt. No. 24.) The relevant procedural background follows.

         On September 16, 2016, MyGo filed a Complaint against MBI asserting, among other allegations, infringement of its ‘630 Patent. (Dkt. No. 1.) On October 17, 2016, MBI filed an Answer with counterclaims and affirmative defenses, including assertions of patent invalidity. (Dkt. No. 7.)

         On December 12, 2016, MBI filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the ‘630 Patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 302 et seq. and 37 C.F.R. § 1.510 et seq. (Dkt. No. 21-1 at 9:10-16.) On December 13, 2016, MBI filed a motion to stay pending completion of the reexamination. (Dkt. No. 21.) On January 3, 2017, MyGo filed a non-opposition regarding the motion to stay. (Dkt. No. 23.) At the time MBI's motion to stay was filed, the PTO had not yet responded to the initial request. (Dkt. No. 21.) On January 31, 2017, the Court denied MBI's motion to stay, concluding that it was premature. (Dkt. No. 25.)

         On February 23, 2017, within twenty-eight days of the Court's January 31, 2017 Order, MBI filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's Order denying its motion to stay. (Dkt. No. 31.) Specifically, MBI notes that on February 16, 2017, the PTO granted MBI's request for ex parte reexamination of the ‘630 Patent, finding that the request for ex parte reexamination raised substantial new questions of patentability affecting claims of the subject patent. (Dkt. No. 31-4 at 4.) MyGo again notified the Court of its non-opposition to the motion for reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 32.)

         LEGAL STANDARDS

         I. Motion for Reconsideration

         MBI does not specify whether the instant motion is brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). In any event, a district court may reconsider a grant of summary judgment under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 59(e) or Rule 60(b). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). Under Rule 59(e), 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.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d at 1263; see also Ybarra v. McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011). Rule 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 justify relief.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or., 5 F.3d at 1263 (quoting Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991)).

         In addition, Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1) provides that a motion for reconsideration must include an affidavit or certified statement of a party or attorney

setting forth the material facts and circumstances surrounding each prior application, including inter alia: (1) when and to what judge the application was made, (2) what ruling or decision or order was made thereon, and (3) what new and different facts and circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist, or were not shown upon such prior application.

Local Civ. R. 7.1(i)(1).

         The Court has discretion in granting or denying a motion for reconsideration. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1991). A court should not grant a motion for reconsideration ÔÇťabsent highly unusual ...


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.