Sharp v. Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
Filing
38
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 34 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order filed on February 17, 2011. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 5/9/2011. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jer)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GEORGE SHARP,
Case No. 10cv2111 BTM(BLM)
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
v.
13
14
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et
al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff George Sharp has filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order filed
18
on February 17, 2011, in which the Court held that it would retain supplemental jurisdiction
19
over Plaintiff’s state claims.
20
reconsideration is DENIED.
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s motion for
21
Under Rule 54(b), any interlocutory order “is subject to revision at any time before the
22
entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”
23
Generally, reconsideration is deemed appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with
24
newly discovered evidence; (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly
25
unjust; or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law. School Dist. No. J,
26
Multnomah County, Oregon v. AC & S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993).
27
Plaintiff contends that the Court’s decision was incorrect and “manifestly unjust.”
28
Plaintiff argues that contrary to the Court’s conclusion, judicial economy is best served by
1
10cv2111 BTM(BLM)
1
remanding this case because “it can be assumed that future cases will be filed in State court
2
which allege similar, if not the exact, causes of action alleged in this Plaintiff’s amended
3
complaint.” The Court declines to speculate regarding state court lawsuits that may be filed
4
in the future. The Court considers the lawsuits that are before it, and remains convinced that
5
coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings in Plaintiff’s case and the Class Action cases
6
would promote judicial economy and the convenience of the parties.
7
Plaintiff also argues that if he is forced to litigate his claims in federal court, the
8
prosecution of his claims will be unjustly delayed. Again there is no certainty that his case
9
would proceed much more quickly in state court. As mentioned previously, Defendants could
10
bring a motion to stay state court discovery under Section 101(b)(2) of the Securities
11
Litigation Uniform Standards Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(b)(3)(D), which, if granted, would halt
12
the progress of the state litigation.
13
Finally, Plaintiff argues that he fears that Lead Counsel in the class action cases might
14
not act in his best interests, unjustly compelling him to retain counsel to represent his own
15
interests and imposing a financial burden on him. The Court understands Plaintiff’s fear that
16
he will lose control over his case, but does not believe that Plaintiff’s fear is well-founded.
17
Even if Plaintiff’s case is consolidated with the class actions for purposes of coordination of
18
discovery and pretrial proceedings, Plaintiff will not lose his procedural or substantive rights
19
or cede authority over his claims. As explained by the United States Supreme Court,
20
consolidation “does not merge the suits in to a single cause, or change the rights of the
21
parties, or make those who are parties in one suit parties in another.” Johnson v. Manhattan
22
Ry. Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496-497 (1933). Plaintiff will be free to file his own motions on the
23
merits of his claims and will not be bound by settlement negotiations conducted in the Class
24
Action cases. See Discount Bank and Trust Co. v. Salomon Inc., 141 F.R.D. 42 (S.D.N.Y.
25
1992). In addition, Plaintiff will always have the right to opt out of any class that is certified
26
and pursue his own claims.
27
Whether Plaintiff feels compelled to hire an attorney is not within the Court’s control
28
and is not a basis for reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order. Plaintiff has not established
2
10cv2111 BTM(BLM)
1
that the Court’s decision to retain jurisdiction over his claims was clearly erroneous or
2
manifestly unjust. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
DATED: May 9, 2011
5
6
7
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
10cv2111 BTM(BLM)
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?