United States District Court, S.D. California
SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, et al . Plaintiffs,
SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., TNK THERAPEUTICS, INC., BDL PRODUCTS, INC., CARGENIX HOLDINGS LLC, TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER, PROSPECT CHARTERCARE ROGER WILLIAMS MEDICAL CENTER LLC, HENRY JI, RICHARD PAUL JUNGHANS, STEVEN C. KATZ, and THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR (1)
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR CHANGE OF VENUE, AND (2) LEAVE TO FILE 10 EXCESS PAGES IN
REPLY [ECF NO. 138.]
GONZALO P. CURIEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17, 2019, Defendants BDL Products, Inc., Cargenix Holdings
LLC, Henry Ji, Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., and TNK
Therapeutics, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed a motion
to dismiss the second amended complaint. ECF No. 90. On
August 2, 2019, the Court granted that motion, ECF No. 126,
and entered judgement against Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth
Siegler (“Plaintiff”), ECF No. 127. On August 30,
2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision to grant defendants' motion. ECF No. 134. The
Court has ordered briefing on Plaintiff's motion and a
hearing is now scheduled for November 15, 2019. ECF No. 139.
August 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ‘emergency'
motion requesting a post-judgment change of venue. ECF No.
133. On August 29, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff's
venue motion. ECF No. 135. On September 2, 2019, Plaintiff
filed a seventh omnibus motion requesting (1) reconsideration
of the Court's order denying change of venue, ECF No.
135, and (2) leave to file excess pages in reply on the
briefing pertaining to her motion for reconsideration of the
court's order dismissing the case. See ECF No.
reasons below, the Court DENIES
Plaintiff's Seventh Omnibus Motion, ECF No. 138, in its
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration
asks that this Court reconsider its decision to deny a change
of venue. See ECF No. 138-1 at 2. Specifically,
Plaintiff claims that the Court has acted with “bias,
misconduct and/or prejudice” in this matter and failed
to accord her appropriate treatment as a pro se litigant.
Id. at 2-4. Plaintiff's claims are devoid of
threshold matter, Plaintiff's motion is procedurally
deficient. Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1), a party may
apply for reconsideration of an order only if the moving
party provides the court with an affidavit setting forth
“what new or different facts and circumstances are
claimed to exist which did not exist or were not
shown.” Here, Plaintiff has filed no affidavit.
addition, Plaintiff has filed the instant motion without
first seeking a hearing date from chambers as is required
under the local civil rules. See Local Civil Rule
7.1(b). The hearing scheduled for November 15, 2019 pertains
only to Plaintiff's motion to reconsider the Court's
order dismissing her case, see ECF Nos. 126, 133,
139, and not to the instant motion.
alternative, the Court denies Plaintiff's claims on the
merits. “[A] motion for reconsideration is not an
opportunity to renew arguments considered and rejected by the
Court, nor is it an opportunity for a party to reargue a
motion because it is dissatisfied with the original
outcome.” Popescu v. California Dep't of Corr.
& Rehab., No. 13CV564 BEN (JLB), 2014 WL 12664803,
at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014), aff'd, 670
Fed.Appx. 580 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Brady v. Grendene
USA, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-0604-GPC-KSC, 2015 WL 11216706,
at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015); FTC v. Neovi, Inc.,
No. 06-CV-1952-JLS JMA, 2009 WL 56130, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan.
Plaintiff asserts no new arguments and merely repeats the
arguments presented in her original motion for change of
venue. ECF No. 133-1 at 1-8. As stated in this Court's
order denying plaintiff's initial venue motion, the Court
has worked diligently to consider Plaintiff's arguments
in the best possible light and treated her leniently in light
of her status as a pro se litigant. Although the Court
sympathizes with Plaintiff's pro se status,
Plaintiff's arguments remain unavailing.
moreover, fails to remedy the deficiencies in her initial
arguments. Plaintiff neither identifies the district to which
she wishes her case be transferred, nor explains how that
transfer would be justified in light of the applicable legal
factors: “(1) plaintiffs' choice of forum, (2)
convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses,
(4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each
forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of
consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in
the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and
time of trial in each forum.” Vu v. Ortho-McNeil
Pharm., Inc., 602 F.Supp.2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009);
see also Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986); Byler v. Deluxe
Corp., 222 F.Supp.3d 885, 903 (S.D. Cal. 2016);
Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins.
Co., 88 F.Supp.3d 1156, 1160 (S.D. Cal. 2015). As stated
in the Court's prior order, the factors weigh against
Plaintiff's motion. See ECF No. 135 at 3-4.
upon reconsideration, this Court DENIES
Plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of the order denying a
change of venue.
Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
also seeks leave to file excess pages in her forthcoming
reply on the briefing pertaining to her motion for