STMicroelectronics, Inc. v. Harari et al

Filing 119

ORDER by Judge Jeremy Fogel denying 118 Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration and Request to Stay Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Remand (jflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

**E-Filed 9/9/08**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION STMICROELECTRONICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. ELIYAHOU HARARI, et al., Defendants. [re: doc. no. 118] Case Number C 05-4691 JF (RS) ORDER1 DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REQUEST TO STAY ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND

Defendants Eliyahou Harari and SanDisk Corporation (collectively, "Defendants") request leave to file a motion to reconsider this Court's order dated August 27, 2008 granting Plaintiff STMicroelectronics, Inc.'s motion to remand (the "Order"). In addition, Defendants request that the Order be stayed while the Court reviews the motion for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion for reconsideration and request to stay the remand will be denied. Defendants base the instant motion on Civ. L. R. 7-9(b)(3), which requires that a party

This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports.

C a s e No. C 05-4691 JF (RS) O R D E R DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ETC. ( JF L C 1 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

seeking leave to file such a motion show "[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order." Here, Defendants argue that the Court's Order erroneously found that a paper filed in a separate but related suit could trigger the thirty-day removal period provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Specifically, Defendants argue that such a ruling directly contravenes the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit in Eyak Native Village v. Exxon Corp., 25 F.3d 773, 779 (9th Cir. 1994). Defendants also contend that the Court was incorrect in holding that resolution of Plaintiff's contractual claims was not dependent on federal law. The Court already has considered these arguments, and it respectfully disagrees with them. A party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration cannot justify such a motion by merely repeating arguments already considered and rejected. See Civ. L. R. 7-9(c). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that (1) Defendants' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's August 27, 2008 Remand Order is DENIED; and Defendants' request to stay the Court's August 27, 2008 Remand Order is DENIED.

(2)

DATED: 9/9/2008 ___________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Court

2
C a s e No. C 05-4691 JF (RS) O R D E R DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ETC. ( JF L C 1 )

1 2 3 4 5 6

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Bart Edward Volkmer, Esq. Edward V. Anderson James Chung-Yul Yoon Kevin P. Burke

[e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
C a s e No. C 05-4691 JF (RS) O R D E R DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ETC. ( JF L C 1 )

Michael A. Ladra

Monica Mucchetti Eno Russell L. Johnson Steven S. Baik , Esq Teague I. Donahey

[e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail]