United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DOCKET NO. 29
M. CHEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
August 6, 2019, this Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
a Temporary Restraining Order and stayed the case for a brief
time, noting that if the Ohio district court continued to
exercise jurisdiction, this Court would issue an order to
show cause why the case should not be dismissed. On August
16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a
Motion for Reconsideration.
Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party must seek leave of the court to
file a motion for reconsideration. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). To
prevail, a party “must specifically show reasonable
diligence in bringing the motion” and
establish one of the following:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material
difference in fact or law exists from that which was
presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory
order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also
must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the
party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or
law at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law
occurring after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material
facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to
the Court before such interlocutory order.
N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Motions for reconsideration are
generally disfavored and are not the place for parties to
make new arguments not raised in their original briefs.
Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc.,
841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th Cir. 1988). “Nor is
reconsideration to be used to ask the Court to rethink what
it has already thought.” Gray v. Golden Gate Nat.
Recreational Area, 866 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1132 (N.D. Cal.
2011) (citing United States v. Rezzonico, 32
F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998)).
ask the Court to reconsider its previous order “on the
grounds that: (1) there was an emergence of new material
facts occurring after the time of the interlocutory order;
and (2) the order represents a manifest failure by the Court
to consider material facts which were presented to the Court
before such interlocutory order.” Motion for Leave to
File Motion for Reconsideration (“MFL”) at 1,
Docket No. 29. The new material fact emerges from
Plaintiff's discovery (“[s]ubsequent to the
hearing”) that “Defendant is not registered with
the California Secretary of State to conduct business in
California - and that under pertinent legal authorities any
contracts it entered into with Altbaier in California would
thereby be voidable by Altbaier.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff alleges that the “manifest failure by the
Court” stems from both the Court's “holding
that the 2013 Shareholder Agreement was not a condition of
employment for Altbaier” and from the Court's
“fail[ure] to provide plaintiffs with adequate notice
to present further material facts to address the
first-to-file arguments.” MFL at 10-11.
New Material Fact
respect to the claim that a new material fact emerged,
Plaintiffs allege that “[f]ollowing the August 6, 2019
hearing . . . Plaintiffs sought to determine whether to serve
Defendant with the Summons issued by the Court and discovered
that that [sic] there is no registered agent for service for
Defendant listed with the California Secretary of State - and
no record that Defendant was ever registered to conduct
business within the State. Thus, contrary to Defendant's
representations,  public records indicate Defendant is not -
and has not ever been - registered to conduct business in
California.” MFL at 7. Plaintiffs contend that this
fact enables Mr. Altbaier to “void the 2009 Employment
Agreement and the 2013 Shareholder Agreement and thus prevail
on Plaintiffs' Motion for TRO.” Id. at 9.
Plaintiffs further argue that Mr. Altbaier's ability to
void the Agreements “further warrants maintaining this
action in California, as without those Agreements there can
be no enforceable TRO in Ohio and the only claim at issue in
Ohio is a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under
Ohio state law.” Id. at 9.
requesting leave to file a Motion to Reconsider, a party
“must show that in the exercise of reasonable
diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not
know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory
order.” Civ. Loc. R. 7-9. Plaintiffs contend that they
discovered that Defendant was never registered to conduct
business in California after the August 6, 2019 hearing, when
they “sought to determine whether to serve Defendant
with the Summons issued by the Court and discovered that that
there is no registered agent for service for Defendant listed
with the California Secretary of State.” MFL at 7. But
Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate why this public fact would not
have been discovered earlier had Plaintiffs exercised
reasonable diligence. A quick online search could have
provided Plaintiffs ...