Filing 80

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 1/3/2013. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2013)

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 12 13 No. C 12-05227 CRB BEVERLEY JAMES LOWE, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Plaintiff, v. 14 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., ET AL., 15 Defendants. / 16 17 Defendant General Dynamics moves the Court to reconsider Judge Eduardo 18 Robreno’s June 25, 2012 order denying its Motion for Summary Judgment. See Case No. 19 2:09-cv-64063-ER dkt. 60. Defendant argues, among other things, that Judge Robreno erred 20 in applying maritime law to this dispute, and that, even if the Court applies maritime law, it 21 should also apply a sophisticated user defense. Id. Defendant urges that reconsideration is 22 appropriate because the parties did not brief the issue of whether maritime law applies in 23 advance of the summary judgment hearing. Id. 24 The Court has reviewed the parties’ briefs on this Motion as well as all of the 25 underlying papers. Having the full benefit of these materials, the Court concludes that Judge 26 Robreno properly applied maritime law, as the locality and connection tests have both been 27 met.1 See Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 367 (1990) (“[t]he need for uniform rules of 28 maritime conduct and liability is not limited to navigation, but extends at least to any other 1 There does not appear to be any dispute as to the locality test. 1 activities traditionally undertaken by vessels, commercial or noncommercial”). The Court 2 also rejects Defendant’s argument that the allegations are not subject to maritime law, finding 3 that Defendant reads the allegations too narrowly. Finally, the Court declines Defendant’s 4 invitation to import the sophisticated user defense into maritime law, as Defendant offers no 5 citation to any other court having done so, and has not convinced the Court that failure to do 6 so constitutes error. 7 Accordingly, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dated: January 2, 2013 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\CRBALL\2012\5227\order re reconsideration.wpd 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?