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)

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)