American Fireglass v. Moderustic Inc.

Filing 169

ORDER denying 148 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 10/04/2019. (jpp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMERICAN FIREGLASS, Case No.: 15-CV-2866 JLS (BGS) Plaintiff, 12 13 14 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. MODERUSTIC INC., 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 148) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant Moderustic Inc.’s Motion for 18 Reconsideration (“Mot.,” ECF No. 148), asking the Court to reconsider its Order (ECF No. 19 145) granting Summary Judgment in favor of Plaintiff American Fireglass. Also before 20 the Court is Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 160) the Motion. 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) permits a party to request a court to alter or 22 amend its judgment. “A district court may grant a Rule 59(e) motion if it ‘is presented 23 with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change 24 in the controlling law.’” Wood v. Ryan, 759 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal 25 quotation marks omitted) (quoting McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 26 1999) (en banc)) (emphasis in original). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to 27 be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona 28 Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether 1 15-CV-2866 JLS (BGS) 1 to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration is in the “sound discretion” of the district 2 court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 3 229 F.3d at 883). 4 Here, Defendant has not presented any newly discovered facts or intervening 5 changes in the controlling law. See generally Mot. Instead, Defendant argues that the 6 Court committed clear error in granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. 7 Defendant contends that “[t]he Court erred as a matter of law by misapplying summary 8 judgment standards, prior art analysis and failing to consider key evidence showing 9 material facts in dispute as to obviousness and commercial success.” Mot. at 2. In making 10 its arguments, however, Defendant raises the “same arguments, facts and case law” that 11 this Court already considered, which is insufficient grounds to grant reconsideration. See 12 Wargnier v. National City Mortg. Inc., No. 09cv2721–GPC–BGS, 2013 WL 3810592, at 13 *2 (S.D. Cal. July 22, 2013) (denying motion for reconsideration where the motion 14 reflected the same arguments, facts, and case law that were previously considered and ruled 15 upon by the court). After considering Defendant’s Motion, the Court finds no clear error 16 in the initial decision and therefore DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration. 17 ArchitectureArt LLC v. City of San Diego, No. 15-CV-01592-BAS-NLS, 2017 WL 18 1346899, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2017) (denying motion for reconsideration where movant 19 rehashed the same arguments made in its motion for summary judgment). See 20 In its Opposition, Plaintiff requests the Court impose sanctions under Federal Rule 21 of Civil Procedure 11(b) because, among other things, Defendant allegedly makes false 22 statements of fact. Opp’n at 5–6. Plaintiff did not make this request in accordance with 23 Rule 11(c)(2) and, in any event, the Court does not find sanctions warranted in this case. 24 Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is therefore DENIED. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 4, 2019 27 28 2 15-CV-2866 JLS (BGS)

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?