AEVOE CORP. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd.

Filing 675

ORDER Denying 544 Motion to Reconsider. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 12/16/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

AEVOE CORP., a California corporation,
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
AE TECH CO., LTD., a Taiwan corporation; )
S&F CORPORATION dba SF PLANET
)
CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation, )
and GREATSHIELD INC., a Minnesota
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK
ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 544) filed by Defendants

12
13

S&F Corporation and GreatShield, Inc. (collectively “the S&F Defendants”). Plaintiff Aevoe

14

Corp. (“Aevoe”) filed a Response (ECF No. 558) and the S&F Defendants filed a Reply (ECF

15

No. 564). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion to Reconsider is DENIED.

16

I.

BACKGROUND1

17

On April 17, 2014, the Court issued an Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider.

18

(ECF No. 532). In its Order, the Court held that Defendant AE Tech Co., Ltd. (“AE Tech”) and

19

the S&F Defendants were jointly and severally liable for the full payment of the sanctions award

20

of $1,067,947.56 in lost profits and $60,941.75 in attorney’s fees as compensation to Aevoe. (Id.

21

11:21–23). Subsequently, the S&F Defendants filed the instant motion, urging the Court to

22

reconsider its previous order and modify the sanctions award against the S&F Defendants.

23

(Defs.’ Mot. to Recons., ECF No. 544).

24
25
1

The facts underlying this action have been detailed extensively in previous orders by the Court. (See,
e.g., Order Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 599; Order Defs.’ Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 582).
Page 1 of 4

1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) provides that any interlocutory order “may be revised at any time

2
3

before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.”

4

Accordingly, “[w]here reconsideration of a non-final order is sought, the court has inherent

5

jurisdiction to modify, alter or revoke it.” Goodman v. Platinum Condo. Dev., LLC, 2012 WL

6

1190827, at *1 (D. Nev. 2012); see also City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica

7

Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 889 (9th Cir. 2001) (A district court “possesses the inherent

8

procedural power to reconsider, rescind, or modify an interlocutory order for cause seen by it to

9

be sufficient.”); United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000); Glavor v.

10

Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 1028, 1032 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (“District courts are

11

authorized to reconsider interlocutory orders at any time prior to final judgment.”)
“Reconsideration may be appropriate if a district court: (1) is presented with newly

12
13

discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or

14

(3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law.” Rich v. TASER Int’l, Inc., 917 F.

15

Supp. 2d 1092, 1094 (D. Nev. 2013); see also Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 807–08 (9th Cir.

16

2004); School Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

17

1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994).
“While a motion for reconsideration allows a party to bring a material oversight to the

18
19

court’s attention, it is not appropriate for a party to request reconsideration merely to force the

20

court to think about an issue again in the hope that it will come out the other way the second

21

time.” Brown v. S. Nev. Adult Mental Health Servs., 2014 WL 2807688, at *2 (D. Nev. 2014)

22

(internal quotation omitted); see also Palmer v. Champion Mortgage, 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir.

23

2006).

24

III.

25

DISCUSSION
The S&F Defendants do not base their arguments on clear error committed by the Court

Page 2 of 4

1

or intervening changes in controlling law. Rather, the S&F Defendants argue that it has newly

2

discovered evidence to present to the Court. (Defs.’ Mot. to Recons. 3:16–23). Specifically, the

3

S&F Defendants request the implementation of a payment plan because it is unlikely that AE

4

Tech will pay any portion of the sanctions award, the S&F Defendants are unable to pay the

5

entire amount of the sanctions award when payment of the full amount is due, the S&F

6

Defendants are able to pay the sanctions award in its entirety under a reasonable payment plan,

7

and if a reasonable payment plan is not approved, the S&F Defendants likely will be forced into

8

bankruptcy. (Id. 2:10–19). In support of these assertions, the S&F Defendants submit as its

9

“newly discovered evidence,” declarations, financial documents, balance sheets, profit

10

calculations, and emails obtained from Aevoe during discovery. (Id. 2:27–3:4). The S&F

11

Defendants also request that the sanctions award against them be reduced to reflect only the

12

units sold by the S&F Defendants. (Id. 2:20–26).

13

The Court finds that neither argument warrants reconsideration or modification of the

14

Court’s sanctions award. First, the Court finds that the S&F Defendant’s new evidence could

15

have reasonably been discovered and raised at the time of the original motion. The new

16

evidence submitted by the S&F Defendants consists primarily of documentation demonstrating

17

the finances of the S&F Defendants. However, the S&F Defendants could have presented

18

similar documentation at the time of the original motion, demonstrating its inability to comply

19

with the Court’s order. Moreover, the S&F Defendants have not demonstrated significant

20

changes in their financial status between the time of the original motion and the period

21

represented in the new evidence. Furthermore, the balance sheets strongly suggest that the S&F

22

Defendants possess sufficient assets to comply with the Court’s order. (See Exs. B–C to

23

Declaration of Feon Tan, ECF No. 546–1).

24
25

Second, the Court finds that the arguments raised by the S&F Defendants in attempt to
reduce the sanctions award against them could have been raised at the time of the original

Page 3 of 4

1

motion. Nonetheless, the arguments are unavailing because, as the Court explained in its

2

previous order, the S&F Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the full award because

3

“[t]he evidence shows that the S&F Defendants were, in fact, in active concert or participation

4

with AE Tech in connection with the resale of the ‘redesigned’ products—even after they were

5

named as parties in this lawsuit.”
Accordingly, the S&F Defendants’ Motion to Reconsider does not present newly

6
7

discovered evidence, demonstrate that the Court committed clear error, or show that there has

8

been an intervening change in controlling law.

9

IV.

CONCLUSION

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 544) is DENIED.

11

DATED this 16th day of December, 2014.

12
13
14
15

___________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page 4 of 4