Gamestop Inc. v. Bridgett, et al.,

Filing 48

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/1/2017 ORDERING 35 The Court is aware of its obligation to first determine jurisdiction before ruling on any substantive motions. The Court's efforts to prevent prolonging the case does not me an the Court will ignore this important fact. The parties need not remind the Court of this fact through continued filings. Defendants' 35 Motion for Relief or Clarity from this Court's previous order is hereby DENIED as MOOT. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GAMESTOP, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:17-cv-00719-TLN-KJN

v.

ORDER

STEPHANIE A. BRIDGETT, District
Attorney, Shasta County District
Attorney’s Office, in her official capacity;
MICHAEL HESTRIN, District Attorney,
Riverside County District Attorney’s
Office, in his official capacity,
Defendants.

18
19

This action involves a complaint for declaratory judgment as to the application of

20
21

California’s Secondhand Dealer Law to Plaintiff Game Stop, Inc. (“Plaintiff”). Defendants

22

Stephanie Bridgett and Michael Hestrin (collectively “Defendants”) filed a motion for relief from

23

or to clarify this Court’s previous order. (ECF No. 35.) Defendants ask the Court to reconsider

24

its previous order denying a continuance on the motion for summary judgment, but granting

25

Defendants request to stay discovery. (ECF No. 35.) Plaintiff filed an opposition. (ECF No. 37.)

26

Defendants filed a reply and Plaintiffs filed a sur-reply1. (ECF Nos. 38 & 40.)

27

1

28

The Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only allow for the filing of a motion, opposition
and reply. Neither set of rules provides an automatic right for a sur-reply nor did the Court ask for one. Accordingly,
the Court will not consider Plaintiff’s sur-reply (ECF No. 40).

1

1
2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (“Rule 60”) states as follows:

3

On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal
representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the
following reasons:

4

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

5

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence,
could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
under Rule 59(b);

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or
applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.
Defendants argue that a motion for reconsideration is warranted under Rule 60(b)(6), “any

14

other reason that justifies relief.” Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not presented any new

15

evidence in their motion that was not previously available to them when they filed their motion

16

for continuance. (ECF No. 37 at 3.) However, new evidence is not required for a motion for

17

reconsideration brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(6). Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument is unavailing.

18

Under Rule 60(b)(6), Defendants must show that “extraordinary circumstances” exist to justify

19

relief from judgment. Straw v. Bowen, 866 F.2d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 1989). Defendants have

20

failed to show that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify relief from this Court’s previous

21

order. Defendants reiterate their previous argument that the Court cannot rule on a substantive

22

matter before determining the jurisdictional issue. However, reiteration of past arguments which

23

were unavailing in the first instance is not the kind of extraordinary circumstances that would

24

warrant granting relief from the Court’s previous denial of a continuance.

25

While the Court is not required to justify its order, the Court will do so here. The Court

26

chose not to continue the motion for summary judgment in an attempt to streamline its court

27

calendar and to allow the motion for summary judgement to be immediately determined if the

28

motion to dismiss is denied. The Court does not want to delay this case any longer than is
2

1

necessary to determine the motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants’ motion

2

for relief from the Court’s denial of a continuance.

3

In the alternative, Defendants assert that factual discovery is necessary to respond to

4

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement with regards to how much the re-sale of goods

5

comprises Plaintiff’s overall business sales. (ECF No. 35 at 4.) Defendants argue that the

6

Court’s previous order creates a conundrum on how Defendants can adequately respond to

7

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and yet not conduct any factual discovery to dispute

8

Plaintiff’s facts. (ECF No. 35 at 5.) Defendants ask the Court to limit the issue to non-factual

9

matters such as the interpretation of the statute because discovery is stayed. (ECF No. 35 at 4.)

10

The Court notes that Defendants requested stay of discovery in their previous motion and to an

11

extent, the conundrum Defendants find themselves in is a problem of their own making.

12

However, the Court agrees that factual discovery is necessary to adequately respond to the motion

13

for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues that it provided extensive evidence to Defendants

14

regarding Plaintiff’s sales in an effort to resolve this case at an earlier stage of litigation. (ECF

15

No. 37 at 3.) However, the Court need not make a final determination on whether to afford

16

discovery because Defendants filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment on May

17

31, 2017. Accordingly, the above matters are MOOT.

18

The Court is aware of its obligation to first determine jurisdiction before ruling on any

19

substantive motions. The Court’s efforts to prevent prolonging the case does not mean the Court

20

will ignore this important fact. The parties need not remind the Court of this fact through

21

continued filings. Defendants’ Motion for Relief or Clarity from this Court’s previous order

22

(ECF No. 35) is hereby DENIED as MOOT.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 1, 2017

25
26

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

27
28
3