Toyrrific LLC v. Edvin Karapetian et al

Filing 102

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AS MOOT 96 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court finds that it would be aided in spreading the mandate by a re-briefing of the issues, and by presentation of any addition al relevant or clarifying evidence. Accordingly, Defendants shall file a revised Motion for Summary Judgment on only the issues that the Ninth Circuit has instructed this Court to consider on remand. Defendants shall file its revised Motion for Summary Judgment as a regularly noticed motion, and shall set the matter for hearing no later than March 21, 2016. The Court DENIES Defendants Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration as moot. (lc). Modified on 12/17/2015 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TOYRRIFIC, LLC,

12
13
14
15

v.

Case No. 2:12-cv-04499-ODW(Ex)

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION [96]

EDVIN KARAPETIAN, an individual,
EDWARD MINASYAN, an individual,
LENA AMERKHANIAN, an individual,
and EDO TRADING, INC., a California
corporation,

16

Defendants.

17

I.

18
19

Defendants Edvin Karapetian, Edward Minasyan, Lena Amerkhanian, and Edo

20

Trading, Inc. (“Defendants”) move for leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration

21

following the Ninth Circuit’s recent remand of this matter. (ECF No. 96.) Plaintiff

22

Toyrrific, LLC (“Toyrrific”) opposes, arguing that Defendants’ Motion is misplaced

23

as there is no final judgment and there are no new facts or changes in the law to

24

warrant reconsideration. (ECF No. 99.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court

25

DENIES Defendants’ Motion as moot.1

26

///

27
28

1

After carefully considering the papers filed with respect to this Motion, the Court deems the matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15.

II.

1
2

This case arises from Defendants’ alleged appropriation of Plaintiff’s trade

3

secrets for the purpose of creating a competing company.

(Compl. ¶ 12.)

The

4

Complaint was filed on May 23, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On April 16, 2013, this Court

5

granted summary judgment for Defendants. (ECF No. 72.) The Court held that

6

Toyrrific’s failure to submit evidence of damages under Federal Rule of Civil

7

Procedure 26(a) precluded them from introducing any such evidence at trial under

8

Federal Rule of Evidence 37(c)(1). (ECF No. 71.) Without evidence of damages, the

9

Court held, Toyrrific could not prevail on its claims as a matter of law. (Id.)

10

On May 13, 2013, Plaintiff appealed from the ensuing judgment, arguing that

11

the Court erred in finding that Toyrrific failed to meet its obligations under Rule

12

26(a), and that it erred in excluding evidence of damages at trial under Rule 37(c)(1).

13

(ECF Nos. 76, 87.) The Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that while the Court did

14

not err in its determination under Rule 26(a), it should not have excluded evidence of

15

damages under Rule 37(c)(1).

16

determined that because excluding evidence of damages as a sanction for failure to

17

adhere to Rule 26(a) amounted to a dismissal of the claim, the Court “was required to

18

consider whether the claimed noncompliance involved willfulness, fault, or bad faith,”

19

as well as “the availability of lesser sanctions.” (Id. (quoting R & R Sails, Inc. v. Co.

20

of Penn., 673 F.3d 1240, 1247 (9th Cir. 2012).) The Ninth Circuit remanded the case

21

back to this Court to consider these issues. (Id.) On June 25, 2015, the Ninth

22

Circuit’s mandate took effect. (ECF No. 88.)

(ECF No. 87.)

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit

23

On September 3, 2015, Defendants filed the present Motion for Leave to File a

24

Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 96.) Plaintiff filed a timely opposition, and

25

Defendants a timely reply. (ECF Nos. 100 and 101.)

26

III.

27

Here, the Ninth Circuit determined that this Court’s imposition of Rule 37(c)(1)

28

exclusionary sanctions was erroneous. (ECF No. 87.) The task for this court on

2

1

remand is to determine whether Toyriffic’s “noncompliance involved willfulness,

2

fault, or bad faith” and to consider “the availability of lesser sanctions.”

3

The parties spend much time arguing whether or not a motion for

4

reconsideration is the correct procedural vehicle to put the matter back before this

5

Court after the Ninth Circuit’s remand.

6

immaterial for the purpose of implementing the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. Under the

7

“Rule of Mandate,” this Court has flexibility to enter orders, consider evidence and do

8

other things to implement the mandate, so long as they “are not counter to the spirit of

9

the circuit court’s decision.” United States v. Kellington, 217 F.3d 1084, 1092–93

10

(9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Thrasher, 483 F.3d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 2007); see also

11

Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Servs., 615 F.3d 1069, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (under the

12

Rule of Mandate, the district court should “‘implement both the letter and the spirit of

13

the mandate, taking into account the [Ninth Circuit’s] opinion and the circumstances it

14

embraces.’” (quoting Vizcaino v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 173 F.3d 713, 719 (9th Cir. 1999))).

The Court finds this dispute largely

15

Here, the Court finds that it would be aided in spreading the mandate by a re-

16

briefing of the issues, and by presentation of any additional relevant or clarifying

17

evidence.

18

Judgment on only the issues that the Ninth Circuit has instructed this Court to

19

consider on remand. Defendants shall file its revised Motion for Summary Judgment

20

as a regularly noticed motion, and shall set the matter for hearing no later than March

21

21, 2016. The Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Motion for

22

Reconsideration as moot. (ECF No. 96.)

Accordingly, Defendants shall file a revised Motion for Summary

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

December 17, 2015

26
27
28

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3