TrustLabs, Inc. v. An

Filing 142

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 107 First MOTION for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration, filed by Daniel Jaiyong An. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/30/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TRUSTLABS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

v.
DANIEL JAIYONG AN,

Case No. 21-cv-02606-CRB
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendant.
Defendant Daniel Jaiyong An moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

14

of the Court’s order denying Defendant’s motion for leave to file counterclaims. Mot.

15

(dkt. 107); Order (dkt. 100). Although Defendant filed the motion while the case was on

16

appeal, see Notice of Appeal (dkt. 102), the Ninth Circuit has since dismissed the appeal,

17

see Ninth Circuit Order (dkt. 108), so this Court now properly has jurisdiction over the

18

motion. Cf. Katzir’s Floor & Home Design, Inc. v. M-MLS.com, 394 F.3d 1143, 1148

19

(9th Cir. 2004) (holding that district courts lack jurisdiction over motions for

20

reconsideration “filed after the notice of appeal has been filed”).

21

Defendant brings his motion under Local Rules 7-9(b)(2) and (3), which permit a

22

party to move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration where there has been “[an]

23

emergence of new material facts . . . occurring after the time of such order” or “[a]

24

manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments

25

which were presented to the Court.” See Mot.; Civ. L. R. 7(b)(2), (3).

26

Defendant has not met either standard. In his motion, Defendant repeats his

27

argument that his counterclaims relate back Plaintiff’s claims. See Mot. at 3–4. But the

28

Court thoroughly explained why that is not the case—namely, Defendant’s proposed

1

counterclaims do not arise from the same transaction or occurrence as Plaintiff’s claims.

2

See Order at 19–22. That Defendant’s proposed counterclaims involve events that

3

occurred close in time to Plaintiff’s claims does not mean that they relate back. See id.

4

And Defendant’s assertion that “multiple law firms” have told him the counterclaims relate

5

back—with no explanation of what “material facts” or “dispositive legal arguments” this

6

Court failed to consider—does not move the needle. See Mot. at 8.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Defendant also argues that the delayed discovery rule applies, and therefore his

8

wrongful termination claims were not time barred. Mot. at 4 (“[A]t the time of his

9

termination, Defendant did not know or have reason to know that Plaintiff was defrauding

10

investors and intended to retaliate against him for objecting to that fraud.”). However,

11

California courts have refused to apply the delayed discovery rule where plaintiffs know

12

that they have “suffered actual and appreciable harm when [they were] terminated” and

13

asserted only that they “did not fully understand ‘the dimensions’ of [their] wrongful

14

termination” until later. See Barton v. New United Motor Mfg., Inc., 43 Cal. App. 4th

15

1200, 1209 (1996); see also Leon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 17-CV-03371-BLF,

16

2018 WL 3474182, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 19, 2018). Defendant alleged in his proposed

17

counterclaims that he reported securities law violations to the Board of Directors and was

18

thereafter terminated. See Proposed Counterclaims (dkt. 92-1). While he may not have

19

fully understood the scope of Plaintiff’s wrongdoing, Defendant suffered an “actual and

20

appreciable harm when he was terminated.” See Barton, 43 Cal. App. 4th at 1209.

21

Therefore, that is the latest that the statute of limitations began to run for his retaliation and

22

wrongful termination claims. See Braz v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., No. 18-CV-06162-JST,

23

2019 WL 202817, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2019); Goel v. Shah, No. C 13-3586 SBA,

24

2014 WL 460867, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2014).

25

Defendant’s remaining arguments are largely conclusory statements that his

26

counterclaims were well-plead. See Mot. at 5–6. And while he says that he has “newly

27

obtained evidence,” he does not explain why any of this evidence would change the

28

Court’s previous conclusions. For example, he says there are communications by Plaintiff
2