Torrey Point Group, LLC v. Razor, Inc et al

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal granting 25 Motion for Leave to File.(psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16

CORCERA SOLUTIONS, LLC (f/k/a TORREY )
POINT GROUP LLC),
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
RAZOR, INC., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

17
18
19

Case No. 5:13-cv-05113-PSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Re: Docket No. 25)

Plaintiff Corcera Solutions requests leave from the court to file a motion for
reconsideration of the court’s February 14, 2014 order dismissing Defendant Sago Networks for
lack of personal jurisdiction. 1 This request is based on newly discovered evidence, and no party has

20
21

filed an opposition.

22

The order in question relied heavily on a sworn declaration from Sago Networks indicating

23

that it had no contacts with California. 2 The order also chastised Plaintiff for offering only “broad

24

speculations” without evidentiary support in opposition to the motion.3 Now, Plaintiff has

25
26
27
28

1

See Docket No. 23.

2

See id. at 6.

3

Id.

1
Case No. 5:13-cv-05113-PSG
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

conducted an “extensive investigation of its former employees” that has produced evidence that

2

Sago Networks solicited California clients, received the services of California clients, engaged

3

California clients in business, and is therefore subject to personal jurisdiction in California. 4

4
5
6
7
8
9

In order to establish leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must
specifically show that “at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law
exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which
reconsideration is sought.” 5 “The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence
the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

order.” 6 “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual

11

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed

12

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 7 It “may not be used to raise

13
14

arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised
earlier in the litigation.” 8

15
Here, the motion is based on newly discovered evidence. Plaintiff argues that it clears the

16
17

bar set by Local Rule 7-9(b)(1) because “was not able to conduct [the necessary] investigation

18

within the response time to for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss.” 9 This argument is

19

persuasive, particularly in light of the documentation submitted detailing the thorough nature of the

20
21
4

22
23

Docket No. 29 at 3-5 (describing the steps of the investigation, including interviewing the former
supervisors of its former employees, locating and interviewing former employees themselves,
conducting a forensic investigation of data stored in inactive email accounts and verifying the
findings of the investigation).

24

5

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1).

25

6

Id .

26

7

389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.1999).

27

8

Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.2000).

28

9

Docket No. 29 at 5.

2
Case No. 5:13-cv-05113-PSG
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

investigation performed. 10

Based on the dates of the documents submitted for review, Plaintiff

2

also appears to have been diligent in bringing this motion for reconsideration as quickly as

3

possible, once it had the necessary information. 11 Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for

4

reconsideration therefore is GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration shall be filed by August

5
6

1, 2014, and any opposition shall be filed by August 11, 2014. No reply brief will be considered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: July 22, 2014

9

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

10

See Docket Nos. 25-1, 25-2, 25-3, 25-4, 25-5, 25-6, 25-7, 25-8.

28

11

See id.

3
Case No. 5:13-cv-05113-PSG
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION