Kelley et al v. AW Distributing, Inc. et al

Filing 307

ORDER DENYING DAIHO SANGYO, INC.'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Jeffrey S. White denying 295 Motion for Reconsideration. (kkp, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2023)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN KELLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 20-cv-06942-JSW v. AW DISTRIBUTING, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING DAIHO SANGYO, INC.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. No. 295 12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion for reconsideration filed by Daiho 14 Sangyo, Inc. (“Daiho”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and 15 the record in this case. Daiho moves the Court to reconsider the Order denying Daiho’s motion 16 for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ negligence claim. Under Local Rule 7-9(b), reconsideration 17 may be sought, inter alia, if there was a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 18 dispositive legal arguments that were presented to the Court before issuance of such order. N.D. 19 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3). 20 Daiho argues the Court manifestly failed to consider dispositive legal arguments because: 21 (1) it concluded that Wisconsin Statute section 895.046 applied to Plaintiffs’ negligence claims; 22 and (2) it determined that Plaintiffs failed to put forth evidence to create a disputed issue of fact 23 about whether Daiho manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted the can of Ultra Duster 24 involved in the accident. Daiho argues those facts necessarily determine it cannot be held liable 25 on the negligence claims. 26 When the Court granted Daiho leave to file this motion, it noted that if Daiho had 27 additional authority to support its position that non-manufacturer designers cannot be held liable 28 for negligence, it should include that authority in its motion. Daiho has not presented the Court 1 with any new authority and relies on the arguments the Court considered, and rejected, when it 2 denied the motion for summary judgment. United States District Court Northern District of California 3 A party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration may not reargue any written or 4 oral argument previously asserted to the Court. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c); see also United States v. 5 Hector, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2005), rev’d on other grounds, 474 F.3d 1150 (9th 6 Cir. 2007) (“A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue a case or to ask a 7 court to rethink a decision it has made.”). Although the Court could deny Daiho’s motion on that 8 basis, it will not. However, having considered the arguments anew, it finds no basis to revisit its 9 decision. 10 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Daiho’s motion for reconsideration. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 Dated: May 18, 2023 ______________________________________ JEFFREY S. WHITE United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?