ChromaDex, Inc. et al v. Elysium Health, Inc.
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 148 MOTION for Reargument re 141 Memorandum Opinion, 142 Order, 143 Order filed by Trustees of Dartmouth College, ChromaDex, Inc. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 4/27/2021. (nmf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
CHROMADEX, INC. and
TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH
Civil Action No. 18-1434-CFC-JLH
ELYSIUM HEALTH, INC.
Plaintiffs ChromaDex, Inc. and Trustees of Dartmouth College have moved
pursuant to Local Rule 7 .1. 5 for reconsideration of the Revised Memorandum
Opinion (D.I. 141) and related Revised Orders (D.I. 142 and D.I 143) I issued on
December 17, 2020. D.I. 148. They seek reconsideration specifically of my
dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)( 1) of certain claims
asserted by ChromaDex for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and my denial of
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a). D.I. 142, D.I. 143.
A motion brought pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.5 is the "functional equivalent"
of a motion brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or
amend a judgment. Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'! Corp., 899 F.2d 1350, 1352 (3d Cir.
1990). Such a motion "must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an intervening
change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct a clear error of law or fact or to prevent manifest injustice." Lazaridis v.
Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA
Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d Cir. 1995)). Plaintiffs invoke the second
ground. They argue that their motion "meets the reargument standard because it
[presents] 'new factual matter not previously obtainable' that 'ha[s] been
discovered since the issue was submitted to the Court."' D.I. 162-1 at 1 (quoting
Brambles USA, Inc. v. Blocker, 735 F. Supp. 1239, 1241 (D. Del. 1990)) (first
alteration added). Plaintiffs identify two "new factual matters": ( 1) an amendment
to a contract executed by Dartmouth and ChromaDex on December 29, 2020; and
(2) the dissolution of non-party Healthspan Research, LLC on January 15, 2021.
D.I. 148 at 1-2.
These matters are not newly available evidence for purposes of the pending
motion because they did not exist at the time I issued the Revised Memorandum
Opinion and Orders. See Brown v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 282 F .2d 522, 526-27
(holding that "'newly discovered evidence' within the purview of Rule 60(b )(2) ..
. refers to evidence of facts in existence at the time of [the decision] of which the
aggrieved party was excusably ignorant"); Compass Tech. v. Tensing Labs., 71
F.3d 1125, 1130 (3d Cir. 1995) (holding that "Rule 59 and Rule 60(b)(2) share the
same standard for granting relief on the basis of newly discovered evidence"). The
matters are also not fairly characterized as "not previously obtainable" because
Plaintiffs point to no fact or circumstance that precluded Healthspan from
dissolving or Dartmouth and ChromaDex from executing the cited amendment
before December 17, 2020. Finally, the matters are not accurately described as
"discovered" because ChromaDex played a role in their creation after December
NOW THEREFORE, at Wilmington this Twenty-seventh day of April in
2021, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that ChromaDex, Inc. and Trustees of
Dartmouth College's Motion for Reargument or Reconsideration of the Revised
Memorandum Opinion and Orders Issued December 17, 2020 (D.I. 148) is
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?