Results ByIQ, LLC v. Fanning et al

Filing 92

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti denying 86 Motion for Reconsideration re 82 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Continue.(sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RESULTS BYIQ LLC, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 14 NETCAPITAL.COM LLC, NETWIRE INC., NETMOVIES INC., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants. 15 16 ) Case No. C 11-0550-SC ) ) ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ) RECONSIDERATION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 17 18 This case arises out of a consulting agreement between the 19 above-captioned defendants and non-party ByIQ LLC ("ByIQ"). 20 Plaintiff Results ByIQ LLC ("Results ByIQ") alleges that Defendants 21 failed to pay bills issued in connection with services ByIQ 22 rendered pursuant to the consulting agreement. 23 previously moved for summary judgment on the ground that Results 24 ByIQ lacked standing to enforce an agreement to which it was not a 25 party. 26 finding that there existed a triable issue of fact as to whether 27 ByIQ assigned its rights under the consulting agreement to Results 28 ByIQ. Defendants On May 7, 2013, the Court denied Defendants' motion, ECF No. 82 ("SJ Order"). 1 Defendants now move for reconsideration of the Summary 2 Judgment Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 3 ECF No. 86 ("Mot."). 4 59(e) allows a court to alter or amend a judgment and, in this 5 case, the Court has yet to enter one. 6 allow a party to move for reconsideration, but only after the party 7 has obtained leave of the Court. 8 motion for reconsideration has yet to be filed here. 9 The Motion is procedurally improper. Rule Civil Local Rule 7-9 does A motion for leave to file a In any event, the substantive arguments advanced in United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Defendants' Motion are unavailing. Defendants contend that the 11 express terms of the consulting agreement prevented ByIQ from 12 assigning its rights. 13 of the agreement, which provides: Defendants specifically point to section 6 14 15 16 This Agreement and the services contemplated hereunder are specific to [ByIQ] and [ByIQ] shall not have the right or ability to assign any obligations under this Agreement without the written consent of NetCapital. Any attempt to do so shall be void. 17 18 Mot. at 2 (citing ECF No. 87-1). 19 assigning its "obligations" to perform services under the 20 consulting agreement. 21 would also prevent ByIQ from assigning its right to payment for 22 services rendered pursuant to the agreement. 23 This language bars ByIQ from However, it is not clear why the language Even if this argument were persuasive, it was not raised in 24 Defendants' summary judgment motion or in their reply in support of 25 that motion. 26 reconsideration must show the emergence of new material facts or a 27 change of law or, alternatively, a "manifest failure by the Court 28 to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), a party moving for 2 1 were presented to the Court." 2 reconsideration should not be granted unless the court "is 3 presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or 4 if there is an intervening changing in the controlling law." 5 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 6 Here, Defendants do not point to new facts or a change in the law. 7 Further, the Court did not previously consider the assignment 8 provision because neither party raised the issue at summary 9 judgment. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Likewise, a Rule 59(e) motion for For these reasons, Defendants' motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 389 Dated: May 15, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?