Theodore Broomfield, et al v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. et al
Filing
100
ORDER DENYING #97 DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/16/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2018)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
THEODORE BROOMFIELD, ET AL.,
8
Plaintiffs,
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
v.
CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 17-cv-01027-BLF
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEEK
RECONSIDERATION OF COURT'S
ORDER GRANTING CLASS
CERTIFICATION
[Re: ECF 97]
On September 25, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiffs Theodore Broomfield and Simone
14
Zimmer’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for class certification. See ECF 94 (“Order”). Presently before the
15
Court is Defendant Craft Brew Alliance, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) motion for leave to seek
16
reconsideration of that order. ECF 97 (“Mot.”). The Civil Local Rules provide that no response
17
need be filed and no hearing need be held with respect to a motion for leave to file a motion for
18
reconsideration. Civ. L.R. 7-9(d). However, Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to Defendant’s
19
motion, ECF 98 (“Opp.”), which the Court has also considered.
20
A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed prior to the entry of a
21
final judgment in the case. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). “The moving party must specifically show
22
reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” and one of the following circumstances:
23
24
25
26
(1) 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. 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 order; or
27
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring
after the time of such order; or
28
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
1
2
dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such
interlocutory order.
Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).
3
In addition, “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral
4
or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory
5
order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). Whether to grant leave
6
to file under Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court’s sound discretion. See Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v.
7
Del Monte Corp.-USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014). A motion for reconsideration is an
8
“extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial
9
resources.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).
10
Defendant brings this motion for leave under Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3) only, arguing that the
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Court failed to consider the following dispositive facts and arguments: “(1) Boedeker’s damages
12
model was invalid given the marketplace instability and (2) Boedeker’s model did not account for
13
quantity, much less hold it constant or fixed.” Mot. at 1.
14
The Court finds that Defendant made each of these arguments in its opposition to the
15
motion for class certification. See Opp. to Class Cert. at 23–24, ECF 85 (arguing that Plaintiffs’
16
expert Boedeker “does not dispute that the beer market is unstable” and thus that his model is
17
inappropriate); id. at 21–24 (arguing that Boedeker failed to analyze supply side in part because he
18
did not “rely on any historical sales or pricing data”). The Court explicitly considered each of
19
these arguments and rejected it. See Order at 30–31 (recounting each side’s arguments regarding
20
marketplace stability and incorporation of supply side); id. at 34 (devoting almost an entire page to
21
addressing the argument regarding the “dynamism of the marketplace”); id. at 31–33 (devoting
22
two full pages to discussing inclusion of supply side). Thus, although Defendant clearly disagrees
23
with this Court’s ruling on certification, Defendant has not demonstrated “[a] manifest failure by
24
the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the
25
Court before” issuance of the Certification Order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(2)-(3).
26
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for
27
reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting Motion to Certify Class is DENIED.
28
2
1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
4
5
Dated: October 16, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?