Sherman & Zarrabian LLP v. LAHC-CPPM, Inc. et al

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF SHERMAN and ZARRABIAN LLPS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING SHAREHOLDER DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 38 , 48 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. (lc). Modified on 10/5/2015 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

SHERMAN & ZARRABIAN LLP dba
MYERS ANDRAS SHERMAN &
ZARRABIAN LLP, a California
limited liability
partnership,

14
15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiff,
v.
ADERANT NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
a Florida corporation;
ADERANT CASE MANAGEMENT LLC,
a Delaware limited liability
company; et al.
Defendants.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 14-09676 DDP (RZx)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF SHERMAN &
ZARRABIAN LLP’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING
SHAREHOLDER DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS

[Dkt. Nos. 38, 48]

20
21

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Sherman & Zarrabian

22

LLP’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s April 28, 2015

23

order and the Shareholder Defendants’1 Motion for Sanctions.

24

Nos. 38, 48.)

25

shareholder defendants’ Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.

(Dkt.

In its previous order, the Court granted the
(Dkt.

26
27
28

1

The Court uses “Shareholder Defendants” to refer to the
individual shareholders named as defendants in this action, namely:
Jose Fernandez, Kevin Dunn, Matthew McIsaac, Kevin Wydra, Peter
Whang, Warren Merkel, Carl Mack, Michael Province, Alice
Vaccarello, and Lori Fullmer.

1

No. 37.)

2

clearly state that granting Plaintiff leave to amend could not

3

possibly cure the deficiencies in the Third Amended Complaint

4

(“TAC”), requests leave to amend.

5

Plaintiff, arguing that the Court’s order does not

Under Local Rule 7-18, “[a] motion for reconsideration of the

6

decision on any motion may be made only on the grounds of “(a) a

7

material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court

8

before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence

9

could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration

10

at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material

11

facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision,

12

or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts

13

presented to the Court before such decision.”

14

Reconsideration is generally only appropriate where the Court is

15

presented with newly-discovered evidence, the court “committed

16

clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust,” or

17

where there is an intervening change in controlling law.

18

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

19

1263 (9th Cir. 1993).

20

“at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the

21

claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”

22

Civ. P. 54(b).

23

C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18.

Sch.

A district court may revise its own orders

Fed. R.

After reviewing the parties’ submissions and upon further

24

consideration, the Court concludes that its dismissal with

25

prejudice of the latest complaint sets forth in sufficient detail

26

the topic of the dismissal.

27

///

28

///
2

1
2

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

The

Shareholder Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7

Dated: October 5, 2015
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3