AF Holdings, LLC v. Doe

Filing 29

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 25 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 AF HOLDINGS LLC, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. C 12-02393 CRB ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. DAVID TRINH, 15 Defendant. / 16 17 The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff AF Holdings LLC’s Motion for Leave to File a 18 Motion for Reconsideration (dkt. 25, hereinafter “Motion”), which urges the Court to 19 reconsider its Order of November 9, 2012 (dkt. 23, hereinafter “Order”), requiring Plaintiff to 20 post an undertaking or face dismissal. To be granted leave to file a motion for 21 reconsideration, a party must demonstrate one of the following: 26 (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party shall also show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) A manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 27 Civil L.R. 7-9(b).1 Plaintiff’s Motion relies on the Rule’s third prong, see Mot. at 1, but fails 28 to identify any unconsidered material facts or dispositive legal arguments. 22 23 24 25 1 Plaintiff erroneously cites to Local Rule 7-3(b)(3), which does not exist. See Mot. at 1. Plaintiff’s first argument is that the Court failed to use the word “contributory” in its 1 2 Order, but Plaintiff goes on to acknowledge both that the Court found, broadly, that 3 “Plaintiff’s current evidence of infringement is weak,” and that Defendant had addressed the 4 contributory infringement claim in his moving papers. Id. at 2-3. That Plaintiff disagrees 5 with the Court does not render the Court’s analysis a manifest failure. 6 Plaintiff next argues that its negligence claim is simply an “alternative theory.” 7 See id. at 5. That might be so, but it is a theory that the Court continues to find deeply 8 flawed. See Order at 2. Plaintiff’s attempt to distinguish SBO Pictures, Inc. v. Does 1-3036, 9 No. 11-4220 SC, 2011 WL 6002620, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011), is likewise United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 unpersuasive. The Court cited that case not because the procedural posture was the same as 11 it is here, but because Judge Conti there noted that “many courts” had reached the same 12 conclusion about IP addresses. See Order at 2. Defendant’s moving papers included 13 additional authorities for that proposition, including some from Plaintiff’s counsel. See Mot. 14 to Post Undertaking (dkt. 20) at 6-10. Plaintiff’s final argument, that the Court’s Order is “inapposite to [the] principle” that 15 16 the “United States is supposed to demonstrate leadership in promoting the rule of law” is 17 simply hyperbolic. Although the Court recognizes, and recognized in its Order, that posting 18 an undertaking of any real amount is inconvenient to Plaintiff, see Order at 3 (reiterating 19 Plaintiff’s concern that undertaking would bar it from proceeding in any copyright case and 20 concluding that undertaking should be “no greater than necessary”), Plaintiff’s doomsday 21 predictions about the fate of commerce in California, see Mot. at 9 (“many organizations 22 might simply choose to exclude California residents from accessing their businesses”) strain 23 its credibility. Only this case is before the Court, and Defendant has met his burden in this 24 case. 25 Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: December 6, 2012 G:\CRBALL\2012\2393\order re reconsideration.wpd CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?