Arbmetrics, LLC v. Dexcom Inc.

Filing 70

ORDER granting 49 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 10/07/2019. (jpp)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 ARBMETRICS, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, 15 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No.: 18-CV-134-JLS (KSC) v. (ECF No. 49) DEXCOM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (“Mot.,” ECF 19 No. 49), requesting the Court reconsider its conditional dismissal with prejudice of 20 Plaintiff’s willful infringement claim. Also before the Court is Defendant’s Response in 21 Opposition to (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 53) and Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of (“Reply,” ECF 22 No. 54) the Motion. 23 Generally, reconsideration of a prior order is “appropriate if the district court (1) is 24 presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision 25 was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. 26 Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 27 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality 28 and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 1 18-CV-134-JLS (KSC) 1 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Ultimately, whether to grant or deny a motion for reconsideration 2 is in the “sound discretion” of the district court. Navajo Nation v. Norris, 331 F.3d 1041, 3 1046 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Kona Enters., 229 F.3d at 883). 4 Plaintiff moves for reconsideration based on its contention that the Court’s dismissal 5 with prejudice of Plaintiff’s willful infringement claim is manifestly unjust. Mot. at 5. 6 Plaintiff contends that by dismissing its claim with prejudice, the Court closed the door 7 forever on Plaintiff moving for leave to amend its claim, even if Plaintiff eventually 8 uncovers additional facts to support its willful infringement claim. Id. at 6. Plaintiff 9 contends that requiring “detailed factual allegations of Defendant’s egregious conduct in 10 order to state a claim for willful infringement . . . prior to having a reasonable opportunity 11 to discover such information, or otherwise face dismissal of the claim with prejudice, is 12 manifestly unjust.” Id. 13 Defendant contends that reconsideration is not warranted for three reasons. First, 14 Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s attempt to “resuscitate its defective willful infringement 15 claim through discovery is contrary to law.” Opp’n at 3. Second, Defendant points to 16 “many courts [that have] conditionally dismissed” claims similar to this. Id. at 5. Third, 17 Defendant contends Plaintiff’s motion must fail because Plaintiff failed to request leave to 18 amend in its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Id. at 5–6. 19 After reviewing the Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court agrees with Plaintiff 20 that the dismissal of its willful infringement claim should be without prejudice. Based on 21 Plaintiff’s allegations, it is possible that Plaintiff could uncover evidence to support its 22 willful infringement claim during discovery. If Plaintiff does obtain additional evidence 23 supporting its allegations, the Court agrees that Plaintiff should be allowed to move for 24 leave to amend. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 25 (ECF No. 49) and MODIFIES its February 19, 2019 Order (ECF No. 47) to reflect that 26 the dismissal of Plaintiff’s willful infringement claim is without prejudice. 27 The Court must make several things clear about the scope of this Order. First, 28 Plaintiff’s willful infringement claim remains dismissed. This Order does not revive that 2 18-CV-134-JLS (KSC) 1 claim, and the reasoning for dismissing that claim remains in force. Next, because the 2 willful infringement claim remains dismissed, Plaintiff cannot pursue discovery pertaining 3 solely to that claim. Finally, the Court does not grant Plaintiff leave to amend its Complaint 4 and Plaintiff should not construe this Order as an invitation to file a motion to amend unless 5 it uncovers facts that would support its claim and cure the deficiencies outlined in the 6 Court’s February 19, 2019 Order. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 7, 2019 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 18-CV-134-JLS (KSC)

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?