Hydentra HLP Int. Limited et al v. Sagan Limited et al

Filing 73

ORDER denying Defendants' #72 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Senior Judge David G Campbell on 2/26/20. (CLB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Hydentra HLP Int. Limited, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-16-01494-PHX-DGC

Sagan Limited, MXN Limited, Netmedia
Services Incorporated, and David Koonar,

13

Defendants.

14
15

On February 10, 2020 the Court issued an order denying Defendants’ request for an

16

evidentiary hearing. Doc. 71. Defendants, who did not file a reply brief addressing

17

Plaintiffs’ response to their request for a hearing, now move for reconsideration and make

18

arguments they could have made in reply. Doc. 72. The Court will deny the motion.

19

I.

Governing Standard.

20

Motions for reconsideration are granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of

21

Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Such a motion will be

22

denied “absent a showing of manifest error or a showing of new facts or legal authority

23

that could not have been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.”

24

LRCiv 7.2(g)(1); see also United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc., 555 F.3d 772,

25

780 (9th Cir. 2009).

26

reconsideration. See Ross v. Arpaio, No. CV 05-4177-PHX-MHM, 2008 WL 1776502, at

27

*2 (D. Ariz. April 15, 2008). Nor should reconsideration be used to ask the Court to rethink

28

Mere disagreement with an order is an insufficient basis for

1

its analysis. Id.; see N.W. Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-

2

26 (9th Cir. 1988).

3

II.

Discussion.

4

Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have waived the argument that the alleged

5

scraping activity in this case is an intentional act. Doc. 72 at 6. The Court does not agree.

6

Plaintiffs merely stated that they disagree “that the jurisdictional ‘intentional act’ analysis

7

requires review of the allegation of scraping and posting videos.” Doc. 70 at 4 (emphasis

8

added). The Court understands this to mean that the Court need not again review its

9

decision (and the Ninth Circuit’s agreement) that scraping is a sufficient intentional act.

10

See Doc. 62 at 6.

11

Defendants also argue that an evidentiary hearing would be limited to whether they

12

could have reasonably foreseen harm within the forum, and that this question is not

13

intertwined with the merits. But the foreseeable harm inquiry will address whether

14

Defendants committed an intentional act of copyright infringement that caused harm in the

15

United States – a question intertwined with the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.

16

jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the merits of a case, it is preferable that a

17

jurisdictional determination be made at trial “where a plaintiff may present his case in a

18

coherent, orderly fashion and without the risk of prejudicing his case on the merits.” See

19

Data Disc, Inc. v. Sys. Tech. Assoc., Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1285 n.2 (9th Cir. 1977); Best

20

Western Int’l Inc. v. Paradise Hospitality Inc., No. CV-14-00337-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL

21

4209246, at *5 (D. Ariz. Aug. 26, 2014).1

22

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is denied.

23

When

Dated this 26th day of February, 2020.

24
25
26
27
Defendants suggest that the Court should not consider Plaintiffs’ argument on
foreseeable harm because it was raised in a footnote. Doc. 72 at 7. But Plaintiffs’
expanded on this argument in the body of their response. See Doc. 70 at 5.
1

28

-2-