LOWE v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al
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)
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?