LHF Productions Inc v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 55

ORDER denying 54 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (swt) (cc: Amy Johnston)

Download PDF
Case 2:16-cv-01273-RSM Document 55 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 2   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 LHF PRODUCTIONS, INC., 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 13 14 Case No. C16-1273RSM ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DOE 1, et al., Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. Dkt. #54. 17 On February 23, 2017, the Court granted Defendant Jose Sosa’s motion to dimiss. Dkt. #53. In 18 its Order, the Court overlooked the response filed by Plaintiff. See Dkt. #32. The Court 19 20 21 apologizes for this oversight. However, consideration of Plaintiff’s response does not alter the outcome of this matter. 22 As noted in the Court’s prior Order, “while it is possible that Mr. Sosa participated in the 23 BitTorrent ‘swarm,’ it is also possible that someone else with access to Mr. Sosa’s IP address is 24 the actual infringer.” Dkt. #53 at 4. Because Plaintiff is “‘faced with two possible explanations, 25 26 only one of which can be true and only one of which results in liability,’” it must allege 27 something more, “‘such as facts tending to exclude the possibility that [an] alternative 28 explanation is true.’” Id. (quoting In re Century Aluminum Co. Sec. Litig., 729 F.3d 1104, 1108 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION — 1                          Case 2:16-cv-01273-RSM Document 55 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 2   1 2 3 4 (9th Cir. 2013)). Because Plaintiff did not plead “facts tending to exclude the possibility that [an] alternative explanation is true,” its claim against Mr. Sosa warrants dismissal. The Court remains unpersuaded by citations to cases presented for the first time in Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. See Dkt. #54 at 2-3. As stated in Local Civil Rule 7(h), 5 6 the Court will only consider “new facts or legal authority which could not have been brought to 7 its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.” Plaintiff did not bring these cases to the Court’s 8 attention in its response to Mr. Sosa’s motion. See Dkt. #32. Accordingly, the Court will not 9 consider them now. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. 10 It is so ORDERED. 11 12 Dated this 28 day of February, 2017 13 A 14 15 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION — 2                         

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?