CollegeSource, Inc. v. Academyone, Inc.
Filing
294
ORDER Denying 288 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. The hearing set for December 11, 2015 is vacated. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 12/8/15. (dlg)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
COLLEGESOURCE, INC.,
11
vs.
12
13
CASE NO. 08CV1987-GPC(MDD)
Plaintiff,
ACADEMYONE, INC.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
[Dkt. No. 288.]
Defendant.
14
15
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order
16
17
18
19
20
21
filed on September 24, 2015, (Dkt. No. 283), granting Defendant’s motion for summary
judgment on the ground of claim preclusion based on a prior judgment in the District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Dkt. No. 288.) Defendant filed an
opposition, and Plaintiff replied. (Dkt. Nos. 292, 293.) Based on the reasoning below,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
Discussion
22
23
A.
Plaintiff moves the Court to reconsider its prior order granting Defendant’s
24
25
26
27
28
Legal Standard on Motion for Reconsideration
motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)
59(e) and 60(b), and requests that the Court make additional findings of fact pursuant
to Rule 52(b). Defendant opposes.
////
-1-
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1
A district court may reconsider a grant of summary judgment under either Rule
2 59(e)1 or Rule 60(b). Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d
3 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). The Court has discretion in granting or denying a motion
4 for reconsideration. Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1991). A
5 motion for reconsideration should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances.
6 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). A motion for
7 reconsideration cannot be used to ask the Court to rethink what the Court has already
8 thought through merely because a party disagrees with the Court’s decision. Collins
9 v. D.R. Horton, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 936, 938 (D. Az. 2003) (citing United States v.
10 Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1116 (D. Az. 1998)).
11
A motion for reconsideration, under Rule 59(e), is “appropriate if the district
12 court (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) clear error or the initial
13 decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling
14 law.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d at 1263; see also Ybarra v.
15 McDaniel, 656 F.3d 984, 998 (9th Cir. 2011). “[R]econsideration of a judgment after
16 its entry is an extraordinary remedy which should be used sparingly.” McDowell v.
17 Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting 11 Charles Alan Wright,
18 Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2810.1 (2d ed.
19 1995)). Rule 59(e) “may not be used to relitigate old matters, or to raise arguments or
20 present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Exxon
21 Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n. 5 (2008) (citation omitted); see also
22 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (“A Rule 59(e) motion may not
23 be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could
24 reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”) (citing Kona Enters. v. Estate of
25 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)).
26 / / / /
27
28
1
59(e).
Rule 59(e) provides for a motion to alter or amend a judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P.
-2-
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1
In addition, Rule 60(b) “provides for reconsideration only upon a showing of (1)
2 mistake, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4)
3 a void judgment; (5) a satisfied or discharged judgment; or (6) ‘extraordinary
4 circumstances’ which would justify relief.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or.,
5 5 F.3d at 1263 (quotation omitted).
6
Rule 52(b) provides that “the court may amend its findings--or make additional
7 findings--and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may accompany a
8 motion for a new trial under Rule 59.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b). Rule 52(a) also provides
9 that the “court is not required to state findings or conclusions when ruling on a motion
10 under Rule 12 or 56 or, unless these rules provide otherwise, on any other motion.”
11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(3); see also Bright v. Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., 780 F.2d 766, 772
12 (9th Cir. 1986). The Advisory Notes further states that “[t]he last sentence of Rule
13 52(a) as amended will remove any doubt that findings and conclusions are unnecessary
14 upon decision of a motion, particularly one under Rule 12 or Rule 56 . . . .” Fed. R.
15 Civ. P. 52(a) advisory committee notes (1946 amendment). While findings of fact
16 under Rule 52(a) are unnecessary on decisions of motions for summary judgment, they
17 are permissible and helpful for appellate review. Gaines v. Haughton, 645 F.2d 761,
18 768 n. 13 (9th Cir. 1981), overruled on other grounds by In the Matter of McLinn, 739
19 F.2d 1395, 1397 (9th Cir. 1984).
20
Here, Plaintiff moves for reconsideration based on the need to correct clear error
21 or to prevent manifest injustice pursuant to Rule 59(e). It also appears2 that Plaintiff
22 moves under Rule 60(b)(1) based on a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or
23 excusable neglect, Rule 60(b)(3) based on a showing of fraud of an adverse party, and
24 Rule 60(b)(6) based on a showing of any other reason justifying relief from the
25 operation of the judgment.
26 / / / /
27
2
In its introduction, Plaintiff
by bolding the
60(b)
28 that it appears Plaintiff seeks to relyhighlights fails to specify provisions of Rule seeks
on. but it
which provision it
to rely on in the discussion of the brief.
-3-
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1
Discussion
2 A.
Failure to Make the Required Finding of “No Genuine Issue as to Any
3
Material Fact” in Section D of the Court’s Order
4
Plaintiff argues that in Section D (“Claim Preclusion and ‘Full and Fair
5 Opportunity to Litigate’”) of the Court’s order, the Court did not make a finding
6 regarding a triable or genuine issue of fact. (Dkt. No. 288-1 at 5.3) It asserts that the
7 Court’s failure to specifically conclude that “there is no genuine issue as to any
8 material fact” “seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
9 proceedings.” (Id. at 8.) Defendant counters that it does not oppose Plaintiff’s request
10 to amend the opinion to more clearly state that there is no genuine issue of material
11 fact; however, Defendant asserts that it is clear how the Court ruled and Plaintiff’s
12 request is unnecessary.
13
On the issue of whether there was a “full and fair opportunity to litigate” the
14 issues in the Pennsylvania action, the Court’s order concluded,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The arguments raised by CollegeSource are, as AcademyOne argues,
direct attacks on the decisions of the district court in Pennsylvania and
the Third Circuit. The Court agrees and declines to reconsider the
rulings of the Pennsylvania courts. Based on the above, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate all
issues in the prior litigation in Pennsylvania. The case was vigorously
litigated by both parties, and the district court and the Third Circuit
provided a comprehensive analysis on all the issues presented by the
parties. Since Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the
issues in the prior case, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment on the seven claims where judgment was entered
in favor of AcademyOne for violation of the U.S. Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, trademark
infringement under the Lanham Act, unfair competition under the
Lanham Act, false advertising under the Lanham Act, and declaration
of trademark invalidity.
24 (Dkt. No. 283 at 32-33.) It is understood that the Court’s order granting Defendant’s
25 motion for summary judgment results in the conclusion that there are no genuine issues
26 as to any material fact, and it is clear from the discussion in the order that there are no
27 triable issues. Plaintiff provides no persuasive authority that any omission constitutes
28
3
The page numbers are based on the Court’s CM/ECF pagination.
-4-
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 clear error or “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
2 proceedings.”
3
In support of its position, Plaintiff relies on United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S.
4 157, 160 (1936), and Hall v. City of L.A., 697 F.3d 1059, 1072 (9th Cir. 2012).
5 However, both cases are inapposite. For example, in Hall, the Ninth Circuit, to avoid
6 a serious manifest injustice, sua sponte remanded the case based on the district court’s
7 error in denying the Plaintiff’s request to amend the complaint to incorporate a Fifth
8 Amendment claim. Id. at 1071. The Court remanded the case to allow a defendant,
9 already in prison for 19 years for a crime he did not commit and based on a
10 “constitutionally questionable” interrogation, to amend his complaint to include a Fifth
11 Amendment coerced confession claim. Hall, 697 F.3d at 1072. Such manifest injustice
12 is not present in this case.
13
Contrary to Plaintiff’s argument, numerous findings of fact were made by the
14 Court concerning whether Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the
15 Pennsylvania Action, (Dkt. No. 283 at 13-33), and the Court applied the correct legal
16 standard to the facts. The omission of the language at the conclusion that “there are no
17 genuine issues of fact” on the “full and fair opportunity to litigate” does not
18 compromise the “fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” and
19 does not result in manifest injustice or clear error. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to
20 demonstrate that the Court should amend its order to add a conclusion already
21 understood by the order, and the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration
22 on this ground.
23 B.
Court’s Order Contains Incorrect or Ambiguous References to “Discovery”
24
instead of “Evidence”
25
Plaintiff next asserts that under “Rule 59(e) or 22(b)4,” (Dkt. No. 288-1 at 9), the
26
27
28
4
It appears that Plaintiff meant to state Rule 52(b).
-5-
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 court should alter, amend or made additional findings to correct or clarify certain5
2 specified references to “discovery” to make clear that it had “evidence” that established
3 Defendant made false statements to CollegeSource and the court regarding IP addresses
4 and usernames/passwords of Plaintiff’s customers, and that Defendant destroyed over
5 88,000 electronic documents on the copy of the Apple server provided to Plaintiff.
6 Plaintiff argues there is a critical distinction between “evidence” and “discovery” that
7 is relevant to the “full and fair opportunity to litigate” issues. According to Plaintiff,
8 “‘evidence’ refers to concrete actual documents or testimony that tend to prove (or
9 disprove) a fact. The word ‘discovery’ generally refers to the request for such
10 documents or testimony.” (Id. at 9.) Therefore, the Court should replace certain
11 references of “discovery” with the word “evidence.”
12
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments are unnecessary and
13 inaccurate. First, it asserts that there is no basis under Rules 59, 60 or 52 to edit the
14 words because Plaintiff does not claim that the Court’s supposedly incorrect word
15 choices actually led to an incorrect ruling. Second, it argues that there is no crucial
16 distinction between evidence and discovery. Lastly, even if Plaintiff’s argument is
17 correct, there is no error in the Court’s description of the Pennsylvania proceedings.
18
First, Plaintiff argues that the Court’s order cites cases regarding the denial of
19 “discovery” instead of the relevant “crucial evidence” standard as stated in Blonder20 Tongue Labs., v. Univ. of Illinois Fdn., 402 U.S. 313 (1971). In raising the full and
21 fair opportunity to litigate, Plaintiff questioned the Pennsylvania courts’ rulings on its
22 late filed motion for leave to supplement its opposition to Defendant’s motion for
23 summary judgment and conduct additional discovery. (Dkt. No. 273 at 5, 17-18.) The
24 motion for leave to supplement addressed “newly” discovered evidence and a request
25 to conduct discovery on the “new” evidence, which the Pennsylvania district court
26 denied. (Pennsylvania Action, Case No. 10cv3542-MAM, Dkt. Nos. 222, 225.)
27
28
5
Plaintiff provides a list of corrections it seeks to make in its brief. (Dkt. No.
288-1 at 9-11.)
-6-
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 Moreover, the Third Circuit noted that the primary relief sought in Plaintiff’s motion
2 for leave to supplement was the “the reopening of the discovery period, which would
3 have allowed CS to serve the newly discovered evidence and explore it further.”
4 CollegeSource, Inc. v AcademyOne, Inc., 597 F’ Appx. 116, 124 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2015).
5 The Third Circuit viewed Plaintiff’s motion to supplement its filings and reopen
6 discovery as a motion to reopen discovery governed by Rule 16(b). Id. at 124.
7
Since Plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement involved conducting additional
8 discovery in the Pennsylvania court, this Court addressed discovery and related cases
9 as it concerns an analysis of a “full and fair opportunity to litigate.” Moreover, in its
10 analysis, the Court notes that it also considered cases that discussed a deprivation of
11 “crucial evidence.” (Dkt. No. 283 at 18.) Contrary to Plaintiff’s contention, the
12 Court’s analysis on full and fair opportunity to litigate did not solely focus on
13 discovery.
14
As to Plaintiff’s other requests to change certain “discovery” words to
15 “evidence,” (Dkt. No. 288-1 at 9-11), the Court does not find that they are ambiguous
16 or inaccurate, and finds no legal basis to make the changes under Rules 59(e) or 52(b).
17 Plaintiff alleges it seeks these changes to make clear that it had evidence that
18 established AcademyOne “made false statements to CS and the court regarding IP
19 addresses and usernames/passwords of CS customers; and (2) A1 destroyed over
20 88,000 electronic documents on the copy of the Apple server provided to CS.” (Dkt.
21 No. 288-1 at 9.) However, Plaintiff’s arguments are already a part of the record, and
22 the Court’s order references Plaintiff arguments concerning the alleged evidence. (Dkt.
23 No. 283 at 13-14.) Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion on this ground.
24 C.
Incorrect Fact That “The Pennsylvania Court and Third Circuit Were Only
25
Presented with Whether AcademyOne Accessed Plaintiff’s Catalog
26
Through Catalink Because that was the Only Admissible Evidence”
27
Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s order contains the following incorrect fact,
28 “Therefore, the Pennsylvania district court and Third Circuit were only presented with
-7-
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 whether AcademyOne accessed Plaintiff’s catalog through CataLink because that was
2 the only admissible evidence.” (Dkt. No. 283 at 25.) Plaintiff argues that the Court’s
3 conclusion was incorrect because it raised seven categories of non-excluded evidence
4 in its opening brief to the Third Circuit and the Petition for Rehearing En Banc and for
5 Panel Rehearing. In response, Defendant argues the Court did not overlook the non6 excluded evidence before the Pennsylvania courts.
7
On the question whether the Pennsylvania courts failed to grasp a technical
8 subject matter, Plaintiff argued, in opposing Defendant’s motion for summary
9 judgment, that the Pennsylvania courts were unable to make the distinction between
10 Plaintiff’s catalogs in AcademyOne’s possession through Catalink and catalogs
11 accessed via username/password login. (Dkt. No. 273 at 16.) When Plaintiff raised the
12 argument concerning unauthorized access to its computers, it centered on the
13 distinction between access through Catalink and username/password login. Plaintiff’s
14 opening paragraph under the heading “CS Catalogs Available Through Catalink” states
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Pennsylvania Court’s and Third Circuit’s inability to distinguish
between CS’s catalogs in A1’s possession available through Catalink
versus username/password login supports a finding (or at least a triable
issue of fact) that the court “wholly failed to grasp the technical subject
matter and issues in suit.” Blonder-Tongue, 402 U.S. at 333.
(Id. at 16.) In analyzing these two methods of access and based on the Pennsylvania
court’s decision to exclude the username/password login method discovered late by
Stan Novak, the Court concluded that the “Pennsylvania district court and Third Circuit
were only presented with whether AcademyOne accessed Plaintiff’s catalog through
CataLink because that was the only admissible evidence.” (Dkt. No. 283 at 25.) In its
order, the Court noted that even Plaintiff acknowledged that the username/password
issue was not before the Pennsylvania district court. (Id.) The challenged finding
merely recognized Plaintiff’s admission and did not operate to ignore non-excluded
evidence supporting the argument that Defendant had accessed catalogs through means
other than Catalink.
Along these lines, Plaintiff, in its opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary
-8-
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 judgment, wrote that its “petition for rehearing pointed out that the Third Circuit had
2 overlooked admitted evidence establishing A1 accessed non-Catalink catalogs” which
3 Plaintiff now claims includes the seven categories of non-excluded evidence. (Dkt. No.
4 273 at 17.) Plaintiff fails to acknowledge that the Court further discussed Plaintiff’s
5 argument that the Pennsylvania courts should have inferred that Defendant accessed
6 Plaintiff’s catalog through means other than CataLink. (Dkt. No. 283 at 26.) The
7 Court concluded that these arguments were raised with the Third Circuit and Plaintiff
8 did not demonstrate that the Pennsylvania courts “failed to wholly grasp a technical
9 subject matter.” (Id. at 27.)
10
In its order, the Court responded to each of Plaintiff’s arguments which included
11 the distinction between “Catalink versus username/password login” and how the
12 Pennsylvania courts overlooked admitted evidence establishing that Defendant
13 accessed non-Catalink catalogs. Moreover, Plaintiff does not allege that the Court’s
14 ultimate ruling that the Pennsylvania courts did not fail to grasp a technical subject
15 matter was incorrect, and its argument is not subject to reconsideration under Rules
16 59(e) and 60(b). The Court is also not persuaded that it should amend its findings
17 pursuant to Rule 52(b). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for
18 reconsideration on this issue.
19 D.
The Court’s “Could Have Been Brought” Analysis Re Three Remaining
20
California Claims
21
In its motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff claims “surprise” by the briefing on
22 the “could have been brought” choice of law issue for the three remaining California
23 state law causes of action. (Dkt. 288-1 at 15-19.) Plaintiff maintains that AcademyOne
24 improperly surprised CollegeSource with new law and new analysis concerning the
25 statute of limitations and choice of law issues in its reply. CollegeSource explains it
26 did not seek leave to file a sur-reply because AcademyOne’s moving papers did not
27
28
-9-
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 come close to establishing the “could have been brought” choice of law standard.6
2 Defendant argues that the issue of whether the claim could have been brought in
3 Pennsylvania was fully briefed by the parties, and that, in its reply, it merely responded
4 to CollegeSource’s argument that it could not have brought its California claims in
5 Pennsylvania. Moreover, if CollegeSource believed it did not have the opportunity to
6 address the issue adequately, it should have sought leave to file a sur-reply.
7
In its moving papers on summary judgment, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff
8 could have brought the three California causes of action in the Pennsylvania action.
9 (Dkt. No. 251-1 at 19.) In a footnote, Defendant anticipated arguments Plaintiff might
10 raise in its opposition as to the conflict of law and statute of limitations issue. (Id. n.
11 3.) In its opposition, Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s argument that it could have
12 raised the California claims in Pennsylvania and argued that there was a conflict
13 between the two states’ laws. In its opposition brief, Plaintiff cited to Farmers Ins.
14 Exch. v. Auto Club Grp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 847, 858 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (applying Illinois’
15 “most significant contacts” test), and Dal Ponte v. American Mort. Express Corp., No.
16 04-2152 (JEI), 2006 WL 2403982, at *5 (D.N.J. Aug. 17, 2006) (applying New
17 Jersey’s “flexible ‘governmental interest’” standard).7 These cases conducted a choice
18 of law analysis, and in Dal Ponte, the court conducted an analysis of each state’s
19 governmental interest. Therefore, since Plaintiff raised the choice of law analysis in
20 its opposition, Defendant properly addressed the choice of law issue in its reply.
21 Defendant addressed the governmental interest because whether the causes of action
22
6
In a declaration, counsel for Plaintiff seeks
23 raised in the Court’s Order in light of his surprise, to respond to additional arguments
and argues that any “failure by me
to present such additional arguments earlier is the result of my mistake or excusable
24 neglect.” (Dkt. No. 288-2, Quinn Decl. ¶ 6.) However, the Ninth Circuit has held that
a judgment under
25 attorney error cannot provide grounds to vacateCo., Inc., 452 F.3d“excusable neglect”
or “mistake.” Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham &
1097, 1100-01 (9th
Cir. 2006) (“A party will not be released from a poor litigation decision made because
26 of inaccurate information or advice even if provided by an attorney.”).
27
7
New Jersey and Pennsylvania
of law
28 Lebegern v. Forman, 471 F.3d 424, 433employ the same choicev. Hiltonanalysis. See
(3d Cir. 2006); Cannon
Hotels Corp.,
664 F. Supp. 199, 200 (E.D. Pa. 1987).
- 10 -
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 could have been brought in Pennsylvania hinges on the governmental interest analysis.8
2
The Court concludes that Defendant did not raise new issues or evidence but
3 responded to the choice of law issue raised by Plaintiff in its opposition. See United
4 States v. Taibi, No. 10–CV–2250 JLS (CAB), 2012 WL 553143, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb.
5 21, 2012) (“[B]ecause the [ ] documents respond directly to Defendant’s allegations
6 made in his opposition brief, the Court finds it may properly consider this rebuttal
7 evidence even though it was offered for the first time in Plaintiff’s reply brief,”); EEOC
8 v. Creative Networks, LLC and Res–Care, Inc., No. CV–05–3032–PHX–SMM, 2008
9 WL 5225807, at *2 (D. Ariz. Dec. 15, 2008) (denying a motion to strike because the
10 challenged evidence was not “new,” as it properly rebutted arguments raised in
11 opposition to a motion for summary judgment); Aguirre v. Munk, No. C 09–763 MHP,
12 2011 WL 2149087, at *13 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2011) (“There was no new evidence in
13 defendants’ reply. Any shift in focus between the motion and the reply was responsive
14 to Aguirre’s arguments and ‘evidence’ in opposition that were different from the
15 allegations in the amended complaint.”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s argument that it was
16 “surprised” by new issues and evidence in Defendant’s reply is without merit.
17
1.
Impact of Court’s Ruling on its Order Dismissing the California
18
Action for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction On the Choice of Law
19
Analysis
20
Plaintiff argues that the Court did not discuss the impact of the California district
21 court’s rulings in the Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
22 Personal Jurisdiction filed on August 24, 2009, (Dkt. No. 93). It argues that the district
23 court’s ruling granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction
24 made the constitutional application of California law in Pennsylvania likely impossible
25 at the time CollegeSource filed the Pennsylvania action and it was constrained by the
26 ruling at the time. Plaintiff argues that in order for its California claims to be asserted
27
8
opposition, failed to fully
28 addressIn its order, the Court noted that Plaintiff, in its was a conflict between the
the choice of law issue and only argued that there
two states’ laws without an analysis of each state’s governmental interest.
- 11 -
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 in Pennsylvania, California must have a “significant contact or significant aggregation
2 of contacts” to the claims asserted and that contacts for personal jurisdiction and choice
3 of law inquires are closely related. Since the district court dismissed this case for lack
4 of personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff argues that its California claims could not have been
5 brought in Pennsylvania.
6
In response, Defendant contends that CollegeSource argued before this Court
7 and the Ninth Circuit that there are a number of contacts between California and the
8 claims at issue in this case and cannot now argue that California had “no significant
9 contact” with the claims. Moreover, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s
10 ruling on August 8, 2011 and Plaintiff could have moved to amend its Pennsylvania
11 complaint to include California claims.
12
On August 24, 2009, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack
13 of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 93.) On September 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed a notice
14 of appeal of the Court’s order. (Dkt. No. 99.) On July 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a
15 complaint in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Pennsylvania
16 Action, Case No. 10cv3542-MAM, Dkt. No. 1.) On August 8, 2011, the Ninth Circuit
17 reversed the district court’s decision and held that while AcademyOne was not subject
18 to general personal jurisdiction in California it was subject to specific personal
19 jurisdiction in California. CollegeSource v. AcademyOne, 653 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th
20 Cir. 2011).
21
First, the Court notes that this issue was not raised in the underlying motion for
22 summary judgment, and cannot be a basis for reconsideration. See Carroll, 342 F.3d
23 at 945 (“A Rule 59(e) motion may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence
24 for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the
25 litigation.”). Second, Plaintiff argued before the district court and appealed the district
26 court’s ruling to the Third Circuit contending that Defendant had sufficient contacts
27 with California. Plaintiff’s argument that it was constrained by the district court’s
28 initial ruling is disingenuous. However, even if Plaintiff was constrained by the district
- 12 -
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 court’s ruling, it could have sought leave to file an amended complaint when the Ninth
2 Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on August 8, 2011. Accordingly, the
3 Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on this ground.
4
2.
Impact of Pennsylvania Court’s Refusal to Follow the “First to File
5
Rule” on the “Could Have Been Brought in the First Action” Analysis
6
Plaintiff asserts that the Court’s order did not discuss the impact of the
7 Pennsylvania district court’s refusal to follow the first-filed rule on the “could have
8 brought” analysis regarding the California claims. Plaintiff argues that the “could have
9 been brought analysis” typically involves the completion of the first-filed action,
10 followed by a second action filed with new claims. However, in this case, because the
11 Pennsylvania court rejected the first-filed rule, this Court’s ruling on the “could have
12 been brought” analysis does not make sense where the California claims were actually
13 brought in the first-filed action. Defendant opposes arguing it is not relevant that the
14 Pennsylvania court did not follow the first-filed rule because the first judgment entered
15 has preclusive effect even where the action was not filed first in the rendering court.
16
The Ninth Circuit has stated that “[w]hen the same claim or issue is litigated in
17 two courts, the second court to reach judgment should give res judicata effect to the
18 judgment of the first, regardless of the order in which the two actions were filed.”
19 Americana Fabrics, Inc. v. L&L Textiles, Inc., 754 F.2d 1524, 1529 (9th Cir. 1985)
20 (citations omitted); see also Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Schendel, 270 U.S. 611, 61621 17 (1926) (“irrespective of which action or proceeding was first brought, it is the first
22 final judgment rendered in one of the courts which becomes conclusive in the other as
23 res judicata”); Hawkins v. Risley, 984 F.2d 321, 324 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The date of
24 judgment, not the date of filing, controls the application of res judicata principles.”)
25 (quoting Guild Wineries & Distilleries v. Whitehall Co., 853 F.2d 755, 761 (9th Cir.
26 1988)).
27
In reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s cases do not address the “could have
28 been brought” inquiry or discuss the anomalous results of precluding an actually
- 13 -
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 brought claim when the first-filed rule is spurned. While the cases do not specifically
2 address the facts that arose in this case, Plaintiff also fails to cite to a case to support
3 its proposition. The Ninth Circuit has held that regardless of which case was filed first,
4 the second court to judgment must give res judicata effect to the first judgment. See
5 Americana Fabrics, Inc., 754 F.2d at 1529. This rule encompasses the procedural
6 posture of this case where the first-filed case, this case, was second to judgment.
7
Moreover, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not raise this argument in its
8 opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and it cannot be a basis for
9 reconsideration as this issue could have been raised at that time. See Carroll, 342 F.3d
10 at 945. In its opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff raised
11 the first-filed rule and “conflicting judgment” in its discussion on “whether the rights
12 or interested established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by
13 prosecution of the second” and not as it relates to the “could have been brought in the
14 first action” analysis. (Dkt. No. 273 at 6, 19-20.) The Court addressed the argument
15 raised by Plaintiff in its opposition. (Dkt. No. 283 at 39.) Therefore, the Court did not
16 fail to consider the impact of the “first-filed” rule on the “could have brought analysis”
17 as it was not previously raised by Plaintiff. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to
18 reconsider this issue.
19
3.
20
Plaintiff argues that the Court’s analysis on the statute of limitations concerning
Court’s Order on California Misappropriation Claim
21 the claim of misappropriation highlights why the “could have been brought in the first
22 action” analysis does not apply in this case or makes no sense because the California
23 claims were actually brought in this first action. Citing U.S. v. Liquidators of European
24 Federal Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1151 (9th Cir. 2011), Plaintiff argues “it makes
25 no sense to apply the ‘could have been brought in the first action’ analysis in
26 [Liquidators] where CS’s California claims were actually brought in the first-action.
27 It is manifest or clear error to dismiss CS’s actually brought California claims in this
28 first-filed action.” (Dkt. No. 293 at 11 (emphasis in original).) Defendant argues that
- 14 -
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 Plaintiff does not challenge the conclusion that the misappropriation claim could have
2 been brought in the Pennsylvania Action and alleges that it is speculation whether
3 AcademyOne would have asserted a statute of limitations defense and that the
4 Pennsylvania Court would have dismissed the claim.
5
Again, the Court notes that this argument was not raised in theunderlying motion
6 for summary judgment, and cannot be a basis for reconsideration. See Carroll, 342
7 F.3d at 945. Moreover, as stated above, “[w]hen the same claim or issue is litigated in
8 two courts, the second court to reach judgment should give res judicata effect to the
9 judgment of the first, regardless of the order in which the two actions were filed.” See
10 Americana Fabrics, Inc., 754 F.2d at 1529. Therefore, the fact that Plaintiff actually
11 raised the misappropriation claim in this action does not preclude it from raising it in
12 the Pennsylvania action where Plaintiff sought to pursue another complaint based on
13 this Court’s dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
14
Liquidators does not support Plaintiff’s position. In fact, Liquidators states that
15 “[r]es judicata bars relitigation of all grounds of recovery that were asserted, or could
16 have been asserted, in a previous action between the parties, where the previous action
17 was resolved on the merits.” Id. at 1151 (quoting Tahoe-Sierra Preserv. Council, Inc.
18 v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, (9th Cir. 2003)). The case does not
19 address or assert that the “could have been brought in the first action” analysis does not
20 apply if the claim was already raised in the first action. The relevant question is not
21 which case was first filed but which case came to judgment first. See Americana
22 Fabrics, Inc., 754 F.2d at 1529; Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 270 U.S. at 616-17;
23 Hawkins, 984 F.2d at 324. In this case, the Pennsylvania action came to judgment first.
24 Plaintiff’s disagreement as to the Court’s legal analysis is not a matter for
25 reconsideration, but a matter for appeal. See Collins, 252 F. Supp. 2d at 938; Sprint
26 Comms. Co., L.P. v. Western Innovations, Inc., 618 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1122 (D. Az.
27 2009) (arguments disageeing with Court’s ruling should be directed to court of
28 appeals). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on the
- 15 -
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 misappropriation issue.
2
3
4
4.
Court’s Order Discussing Governmental Interests on California and
Pennsylvania Statutory Claims
Plaintiff argues that the Court correctly concluded that California Penal Code
5 section 502 claim and statutory unfair competition claim under California Business &
6 Professions Code section 17200 et seq. differed significantly from Pennsylvania’s
7 statutory counterpart. However, Plaintiff contends that the Court did not consider two
8 recent cases where Pennsylvania district courts held there is a “true conflict” between
9 California’s statutory unfair competition law and Pennsylvania’s statutory unfair
10 competition law. See ClubCom, Inc. v. Captive Medica, Inc., No. 07cv1462, 2009 WL
11 249446, at *7 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2009); Panthera Rail Car LLC v. Kasgro Rail Corp.,
12 No. 13-679, 2013 WL 4500468, at *11-12 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 21, 2013). Defendant
13 contends that Plaintiff identifies no “manifest” or “clear error” to justify relief under
14 Rules 59 and 60 and that the authority the Court relied on is good law. Moreover,
15 Defendant argues that the cases Plaintiff cites are not controlling and are not new.
16
In its analysis of the governmental interests to determine the choice of law
17 question, the Court relied on a case cited by Defendant, Fresh Start Indus., Inc. v. ATX
18 Telecomms. Servs., 295 F. Supp. 2d 521, 527 (E.D. Pa. 2003), a published opinion
19 from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In the case, the district court compared
20 New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) with Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade
21 Practices Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”). The NJCFA allows corporations to
22 bring suit, but the UTPCPL excludes corporations. The district court concluded that
23 New Jersey had an interest in protecting commercial entities as well as consumers and
24 such interest would be impaired if the UTPCPL was applied. Id. at 527. However,
25 Pennsylvania had no interest in the dispute since business entities are outside the scope
26 of its statute. Id. The district court also noted that broadening the protection to include
27 commercial entities would not impair the UTPCPL whose purpose is “to prevent unfair
28 or deceptive business practices and fraud.” Id. Since California’s unfair competition
- 16 -
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 statute similarly provides broader protection to corporations as New Jersey, in
2 following the reasoning of the court in Fresh Start, this Court concluded that
3 California’s interest in protecting corporations would be impaired if the Pennsylvania
4 court applied Pennsylvania law. (Dkt. No. 283 at 28.) Therefore, the Pennsylvania
5 court would have applied California law.
6
In its motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff cites two unpublished cases from the
7 Western District of Pennsylvania comparing the UTPCPL and California’s UCL where
8 the court concluded that there was an actual conflict since both states’ governmental
9 interests would be impaired. First, these case are not new and Plaintiff could have
10 presented these cases in its opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
11 and cannot be a basis for reconsideration. See Carroll, 342 F.3d at 945. Second,
12 neither of these unpublished cases are binding.
13
Even if the Court agrees with the holding in the cases cited by Plaintiff, that
14 there is a true conflict, the next step is to determine which state has the most significant
15 contacts or relationships with the particular issue. See Budget Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc.
16 v. Chappell, 407 F.3d 166, 170 (3d Cir. 2005) (“If a case presents a true conflict,
17 Pennsylvania choice-of-law rules ‘call for the application of the law of the state having
18 the most significant contacts or relationships with the particular issue.’”) In its motion
19 for reconsideration, Plaintiff argues and cites caselaw that the examination of contacts
20 for personal jurisdiction and for choice of law inquiries “are often closely related and
21 to a substantial degree depend on similar considerations.” (Dkt. No. 288-1 at 15
22 (quoting Allstate Inc. Co. v. Hague, 449 U.S. 302, 318 n. 23 (1981)).) Therefore, based
23 on Plaintiff’s line of reasoning, since the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s
24 opinion holding that the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, then the
25 Pennsylvania courts would have applied California law. Plaintiff’s arguments are not
26 compelling and the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration on this
27 ground.
28 / / / /
- 17 -
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
1 E.
Requests for Judicial Notice
2
In its motion, Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice of numerous documents
3 filed in the Pennsylvania Action. (Dkt. No. 288-3.) In its opposition, Defendant filed
4 a request for judicial notice of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to supplement opposition to
5 Defendant’ motion for summary judgment and conduct additional discovery that was
6 filed in the Pennsylvania action. (Dkt. No. 292-1.) In its reply, Plaintiff filed a request
7 for judicial notice consisting of a transcript of testimony of a hearing before the
8 Pennsylvania district court, and a declaration of Stan Novak filed in the Pennsylvania
9 action. (Dkt. No. 293-1.) Neither party has opposed the requests for judicial notice.
10
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 allows a court to take judicial notice of facts that
11 are either “generally known” or “can be accurately or readily determined from sources
12 whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 201(b). The Court
13 may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts. United States ex rel. Robinson
14 Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[W]e ‘may
15 take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial
16 system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’”). Accordingly,
17 the Court GRANTS both parties’ requests for judicial notice.
18
19
Conclusion
Based on the above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.
20 The hearing set for December 11, 2015 shall be vacated.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23 DATED: December 8, 2015
24
25
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
26
27
28
- 18 -
[08CV1987-GPC(MDD)]
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?