Stewart v. Gogo, Inc.

Filing 51

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration 49 . Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 7/30/2013. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/30/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JAMES STEWART, et al.,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-5164 EMC

GOGO, INC.,

12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendant.
___________________________________/

13
14
15

Previously, the Court granted Defendant Gogo, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. In the order, the

16

Court noted that Plaintiffs’ complaint as pled was deficient in that (1) it appeared that the contracts

17

at issue bound airlines on an aircraft-by-aircraft basis and that (2) Plaintiffs failed to make any

18

allegations as to why airplanes that could be equipped with internet access should not be included in

19

the full range of selling opportunities reasonably open to a competitor. See Docket No. 37 (Order at

20

2, 6). The Court gave Plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint to address this deficiency. See

21

Docket No. 37 (Order at 9).

22

In lieu of an amended complaint, Plaintiffs have now filed a motion for leave to file a motion

23

for reconsideration. Plaintiffs explain that, based on contracts that Gogo has produced, they now

24

have evidence to support the allegation that the contracts at issue bound airlines with respect to their

25

entire (or close to entire) fleets.

26

Plaintiffs’ motion, however, is an awkward way to resolve the matter. It makes little sense

27

for Plaintiffs to ask, in essence, to stand on their original complaint when it was not clear from the

28

allegations in that complaint that the contracts at issue bound airlines with respect to their entire (or

1

close to entire) fleets. Moreover, now that Plaintiffs have had the benefit of reviewing the contracts,

2

Plaintiffs should be able to make new factual allegations to support their case.

3

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the best way to proceed is to allow Plaintiffs to file an

4

amended complaint in which they may, e.g., explicitly plead that the contracts are exclusive and

5

bind airlines with respect to their entire (or close to entire) fleets. Plaintiffs may also include in the

6

amended complaint allegations regarding the specific airlines discussed in their motion.

7

Plaintiffs shall file their amended complaint within twenty (20) days from the date of this

8

order. Defendants shall then have twenty (20) days thereafter to file a response to the amended

9

complaint (whether a motion or an answer).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion is denied but Plaintiffs have leave to file an amended
complaint consistent with the above.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: July 30, 2013

16
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2