Italia Marittima, S.P.A. v. Seaside Transportation Services, LLC et al

Filing 46

ORDER re 45 MOTION for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Court's September 7, 2010 Order filed by Italia Marittima, S.P.A.. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 9/29/2010. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2010)

Italia Marittima, S.P.A. v. Seaside Transportation Services, LLC et al

Doc. 46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ITALIA MARITTIMA, S.P.A. Plaintiff, v. SEASIDE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ Plaintiff Italia Marittima, S.p.A. ("Italia Marittima") seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's September 7, 2010, order granting the motion of defendant Marine Terminals Corporation ("MTC") to dismiss the claims asserted against it, without leave to amend. Plaintiff claims that the court did not consider that Italia Marittima's indemnity claims against MTC did not accrue until Italia Marittima made payment or judgment was affixed, and that Italia Marittima should be permitted leave to amend its claims against MTC (just as it was permitted leave to amend its claims against Seaside Transportation Services LLC ("Seaside") on the same theory). As the court noted in the September 7, 2010 order, the complaint does not mention indemnity. However, as to Seaside, Italia Marittima did mention in its opposition to the motion to dismiss that it was proceeding under theories of indemnity and contribution. On that rather thin basis, the court agreed to permit Italia Marittima to amend its claims against Seaside. However, Italia Marittima did not make the same assertion in its opposition to MTC's motion. Moreover, it is the court's recollection that the discussion at the hearing No. C 10-0803 PJH ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

regarding indemnity was in the context of Italia Marittima's opposition to Seaside's motion, not its opposition to MTC's. The court will consider granting the motion for reconsideration only if Italia Marittima can establish that it previously asserted that its claims against MTC were based on an indemnity theory.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 29, 2010 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2