Axis Reinsurance Company v. Telekenex, Inc. et al

Filing 88

Order by Hon. Samuel Conti denying 83 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Order 68 .Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 2/22/2013. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 AXIS REINSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 v. TELEKENEX, INC.; ANTHONY ZABIT; KAREN SALAZAR; BRANDON CHANEY; DEANNA CHANEY; MARK PRUDELL; JOY PRUDELL; MARK RADFORD; NIKKI RADFORD; JOSHUA SUMMERS; JULIA SUMMERS; IXC HOLDINGS, INC.; STRAITSHOT COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; and STRAITSHOT RC, LLC, 17 Defendants. 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 12-2979 SC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 19 20 On December 19, 2012, the Court issued an order granting in 21 part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for partial summary 22 judgment. 23 to file a motion for reconsideration of the Summary Judgment Order. 24 ECF No. 83 ("Mot."). 25 (1) "that at the time of the motion for leave, a material 26 difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to 27 the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 28 reconsideration is sought"; (2) "the emergence of new material ECF No. 68 ("SJ Order"). Defendants now move for leave In this context, the moving party must show: 1 facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order"; 2 or (3) "a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts 3 or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 4 before such interlocutory order." 5 Defendants move for reconsideration under the third factor. 6 reviewed the Motion, the Summary Judgment Order, and the materials 7 filed in connection with Plaintiff's motion for partial summary 8 judgment, the Court finds that there was not a manifest failure to 9 consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Here, Having Accordingly, Defendants' Motion is DENIED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 15 Dated: February 22, 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?