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)

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