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
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?