Southern California Gas Company v. Syntellect, Inc.

Filing 91

ORDER Denying Syntellect's 82 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 7/25/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knh)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, a California corporation, CASE NO. 08cv941 BEN (NLS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 vs. 16 17 18 19 20 SYNTELLECT, INC., a Delaware corporation, ORDER DENYING SYNTELLECT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant. 21 22 23 24 SYNTELLECT, INC., a Delaware corporation, Counterclaimant, 25 26 27 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, a California corporation, Counterdefendant. 28 -1- 08cv0941 1 Syntellect, Inc., moves for reconsideration of the order on the cross motions for summary 2 judgment. Reconsideration of a previous order is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly 3 in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 4 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly 5 unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, 6 committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Id. (quoting 7 Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). 8 9 The fact that the opinion by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama was vacated in accordance with a stipulation of the parties (one of which was Syntellect), 10 does not constitute an intervening change in controlling law, as Syntellect asserts. The decision 11 was not controlling. Moreover, its reasoning has not lost its persuasive force. Syntellect also 12 argues that this Court made a decision “outside the adversarial issues presented to the court.” It 13 did not. Finally, the Court declines the invitation of Southern California Gas Company to order 14 Syntellect to show cause why it should not be sanctioned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for filing 15 the motion for reconsideration. 16 The motion for reconsideration is denied. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 DATED: July 25, 2011 20 21 Hon. Roger T. Benitez United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 08cv0941

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?