Flipboard, Inc. v. Amorphous

Filing 43


Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 FLIPBOARD, INC., Case No. 15-cv-03255-BLF Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 KALLIOPE AMORPHOUS, Defendant. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Re: ECF 42] United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 On December 10, 2015, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss this declaratory 14 judgment action, finding that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant based both on her 15 consent to such jurisdiction and on her contacts with California. See Order, ECF 38 at 7, 12. 16 Defendant now moves for leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order pursuant to Civil 17 Local Rule 7-9. ECF 42. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 18 Rule 7-9 allows a party to request leave to file a motion for reconsideration before a 19 judgment has been entered on any of three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists 20 from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the 21 moving party did not know at the time of the order for which reconsideration is sought; (2) the 22 emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to 23 consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). The moving party 24 may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the court. Civ. L.R. 7–9(c). 25 Defendant seeks leave to move for reconsideration on the grounds that the initial decision 26 was manifestly unjust and failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Mot. at 27 2. Specifically, Defendant contends that the Court failed to address her discussion of Walden v. 28 Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014). Id. at 3-4. However, Defendant does not argue that Walden is 1 dispositive of the Motion to Dismiss; rather, Defendant concedes that “the Supreme Court’s 2 opinion in Walden stops well short of overturning the . . . line of cases” upon which the Court 3 relied to reach its decision. Id. at 9. In effect, Defendant is rearguing a position she has previously 4 asserted to the Court—an argument the Court considered but found unpersuasive given the 5 substantial factual differences between Walden and this case, especially in light of the significant 6 body of cases considering facts similar to this case. 7 In addition, Defendant appears to challenge the Court’s “erroneous conclusions” 8 regarding the facts underlying its assertion of jurisdiction. First, as before, Defendant contends 9 that honoring her consent to Plaintiff’s terms is unfair because she had to consent in order to document Plaintiff’s distribution of her photographs—not, as Plaintiff contends, to manufacture 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 infringement. Similarly, Defendant again contends that her inquiries to Flickr and Tumblr were 12 not, as Plaintiff suggests, attempts to disrupt Plaintiff’s business relationships and suggests that no 13 other conclusion is possible in light of Plaintiff’s choice not to bring affirmative claims for tortious 14 interference in this case. Contrary to Defendant’s argument, however, the Court did not conclude 15 that Defendant consented to Plaintiff’s terms in order to manufacture infringement or that 16 Defendant engaged in intentional misrepresentation, nor did it read a tortious interference claim 17 into Plaintiff’s complaint. Rather, the Court took Plaintiff’s uncontroverted allegations as true for 18 the purposes of the motion, as it must. 19 Thus, Defendant has not shown that the Court manifestly failed to consider material facts 20 or dispositive legal arguments. Instead, Defendant appears to seek leave to reargue positions 21 previously asserted to the Court. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Leave is DENIED. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 26 Dated: January 19, 2016 ______________________________________ BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 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?