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)

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