Golden v. Qualcomm, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LARRY GOLDEN, Case No. 22-cv-03283-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 51 10 QUALCOMM, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Larry Golden’s motion for reconsideration of the 14 Court’s order granting Defendant Qualcomm’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 49. Dkt. No. 51.1 15 Qualcomm filed an opposition (Dkt. No. 53, “Opp.”), and Plaintiff then filed a document styled as 16 “supplemental authority.” (Dkt. No. 54). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition 17 without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court 18 DENIES the motion. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 In the Northern District of California, Local Rule 7-9 allows for the filing of motions for 21 reconsideration only with respect to interlocutory orders made in a case prior to the entry of final 22 judgment. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Post-judgment motions for reconsideration are construed as 23 motions to alter or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter 24 or amend judgment) or motions for relief from judgment or order under Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment). 26 27 1 In addition to the motion, Dkt. No. 51, Plaintiff submitted Dkt. No. 52, entitled “Plaintiff’s 1 Motions for reconsideration should not be frequently made or freely granted; they are not a 2 substitute for appeal or a means of attacking some perceived error of the court. See Twentieth 3 Century - Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981). “[T]he major 4 || grounds that justify reconsideration involve an intervening change of controlling law, the 5 availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” 6 Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364, 369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting 7 United States v. Desert Gold Mining Co., 433 F.2d 713, 715 (9th Cir. 1970)). 8 Rule 60(b) lists six grounds for relief from a judgment: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise 9 or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been 10 || discovered in time to move for a new trial; (3) fraud by the adverse party; (4) the judgment is void; 11 (5) the judgment has been satisfied; (6) any other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b); 12 School Dist. 1J v. ACandS Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). 13 II. DISCUSSION 14 Plaintiff’s motion does not present any basis for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal 3 15 order or the resulting judgment. It simply contends that the Court was wrong to dismiss his case, a 16 || raising substantially the same arguments Plaintiff presented in opposing the motion to dismiss. 3 17 Plaintiff has every right to make these arguments on appeal, but he may not relitigate them here. 18 The Court has issued its ruling, final judgment has been entered, and this case remains closed. 19 The motion for reconsideration is thus DENIED, and the Clerk is directed not to accept any 20 || further filings in this closed case. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: 4/6/2023 Alauprerl 8 Mbt) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28