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)

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