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)
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?