Martifer-Silverado Fund I, LLC v. Zhongli Science and Technology Group Co., Ltd et al

Filing 56

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 53 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2020)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MARTIFER-SILVERADO FUND I, LLC,
Plaintiff,

7

10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

vs.

8
9

CASE NO. 19-cv-04243-YGR

ZHONGLI SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
GROUP CO., LTD., ET AL.,

Re: Dkt. No. 53

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

The Court is in receipt of defendants Zhongli Science and Technology Group Co., Ltd. and

13

Suzhou Talesun Solar Technology Co., Ltd.’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

14

of the Court’s September 11, 2020 order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended

15

complaint (Dkt. No. 45). Having carefully considered the motion, the Court finds that defendants

16

have not satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 7-9(b)(1)-(3).

17

Defendants’ assertion that the Court improperly applied the “purposeful availment” test,

18

instead of the “purposeful direction” test, misconstrues the order. Therein, the Court referred to

19

both tests, and moreover, its analysis focused almost entirely on evidence of defendants’ actions

20

outside the forum state that were directed at the forum, which goes to the showing required under

21

the “purposeful direction” test. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 803

22

(9th Cir. 2004). To the extent the Court referred to “purposeful availment,” it did so to reflect the

23

language used and arguments raised in the parties’ own briefing.1

24
25

In any event, under either test, the result is the same. Defendants repeatedly argue that
none of the Court’s findings alone is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. The Court,

26
27
28

1

The Ninth Circuit also has recognized that courts “often use the phrase ‘purposeful
availment,’ in shorthand fashion, to include both purposeful availment and purposeful direction.”
Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.

1

however, did not rely on any single fact or jurisdictional theory in isolation, instead considering

2

whether the evidence, taken as a whole, demonstrated minimum contacts with the forum. In some

3

instances, defendants’ motion misleadingly highlights arguments that the Court merely noted, but

4

on which it did not rely in reaching a decision. Defendants also repeat many of the same

5

arguments already raised in their prior briefing and considered by the Court.

6

Likewise, defendants’ motion largely rehashes the same arguments previously made as to
why they believe Talesun Solar USA Ltd. is a necessary party. None of these arguments warrants

8

reconsideration. In particular, the Court firmly rejects defendants’ contention that the order

9

“ignore[d] the long list of cases cited” and “overlook[ed] [] controlling authority.” None of the

10

decisions cited by defendants on this issue is from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, or

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

even another court in this district. Furthermore, simply because an order does not address every

12

case cited in the parties’ briefing does not mean the relevant cases were not properly considered.

13

In sum, no material difference in law or fact exists from the time of presentation of the

14

initial motion, nor did the Court fail to consider the facts or arguments presented therein. To the

15

extent defendants now attempt to reframe their prior arguments, the rules do not allow them a

16

second bite of the apple. In any event, the Court does not believe reframing would change the

17

outcome. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is denied.

18

This Order terminates Docket Number 53.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: October 16, 2020
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2