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.

MGA Entertainment, Inc. v. Dynacraft BSC, Inc.

United States District Court, C.D. California

December 11, 2019

MGA ENTERTAINMENT, INC; THE LITTLE TIKES COMPANY., Plaintiffs,
v.
DYNACRAFT BSC, INC., et al. Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [109] AND DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY [91]

          OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Presently before the Court is Defendant Dynacraft's (“Dynacraft”) Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order striking Dynacraft's Expert Report (“Motion”). (Mot. for Recons. (“Mot.”), ECF No. 109.) For reasons that follow, Dynacraft's Motion is DENIED.[1]

         II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The Court addressed the factual allegations and procedural history relevant to this case in its Minute Order granting Plaintiffs MGA Entertainment, Inc.'s and The Little Tikes Company's (collectively “MGA”) Motion to Strike Late-Served Expert Report, and incorporates that discussion here by reference. (See Min. Order, ECF No. 108.) On April 30, 2019, the Court granted MGA's Motion to Strike Dynacraft's Late-Served Expert Report (Min. Order 4-5.), and on May 3, 2019, the Court granted Dynacraft's Motion to Strike MGA's Late-Served Expert Report (Min. Order 4, ECF No. 112.) On May 3, 2019, Dynacraft filed the instant Motion for Reconsideration of only the Court's Order striking Dynacraft's Expert Report, pursuant to Local Rule 7-18. (Mot.)

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         A motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-18 may be made 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.

C.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-18; see In re Countrywide Fin. Corp. Mortg.-Backed Sec. Litig., 966 F.Supp.2d 1031, 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Consistent with Local Rule 7-18, “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.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “Whether to grant a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-18 is a matter within the court's discretion.” Daghlian v. DeVry Univ., Inc., 582 F.Supp.2d 1231, 1251 (C.D. Cal. 2007). “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.” C.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-18; Rosenfeld v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 57 F.3d 803, 811 (9th Cir. 1995).

         IV. DISCUSSION

         Dynacraft brings this Motion pursuant to Local Rule 7-18(c), asserting that the Court failed to consider material facts. (See Mot.) Dynacraft asserts two arguments: first, the Court failed to account for the Parties' July 25, 2018 Stipulation (“Stipulation”) (ECF No. 58) and second, the Court failed to account for Dynacraft's justified reliance on the parties' Rule 26(f) agreement. (Mot. 5.) The Court finds both arguments unpersuasive and fail to satisfy the taxing burden of Local Rule 7-18.

         A. Failure to Account for the Parties' July 25, 2018 Stipulation

         Dynacraft asserts that this Court failed to account for the parties' Stipulation, specifically the Court did not reference the phrase “issue for which party bears the burden of proof.” (Mot. 2.) Dynacraft contends that its expert reports are rebuttal reports which fell under the March 18, 2019 rebuttal deadline, rather than the January 18, 2019 deadline for opening expert reports. Dynacraft contends this means that their expert report should not have been stricken as untimely. (Mot. 4-5.)

         The Court disagrees. To begin, these arguments merely repeat Dynacraft's original arguments opposing MGA's motion to strike. (See Def.'s Opp'n 3-4, ECF No. 93.) Further, the Court considered and rejected Dynacraft's arguments. (See Min. Order 4-5.) The Court considered the Parties' Stipulation, including the noted language. The Court concluded that Dynacraft's expert report did not serve as a rebuttal report, “[f]inding that the expert witness testimony of Bruce Isaacson does not rebut any expert from MGA, [and ...


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.