Crown Cell Inc. v. Ecovacs Robotics, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CROWN CELL INC, Case No. 21-cv-07890-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 54, 55 10 ECOVACS ROBOTICS, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 13 Plaintiff seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order granting in part 14 and denying in part defendant’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Dkt. No. 54. In 15 conjunction thereto, plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file its third amended complaint. (TAC). 16 Dkt. No. 55. Both motions are denied. 17 Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), a motion for reconsideration may be granted before entry of 18 judgment adjudicating all of the claims and rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case. Civ. L.R. 19 7-9(a). A motion for reconsideration may be made on three grounds: (1) a material difference in 20 fact or law exists from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of reasonable 21 diligence, the moving party did not know at the time of the order for which reconsideration is sought; 22 (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to 23 consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Motions for reconsideration 24 are disfavored and “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district 25 court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an 26 intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1254 (9th Cir. 27 1999) (per curiam) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Furthermore, “[a] motion for 1 could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos 2 Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of 3 Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Further, the moving party may not reargue any written 4 || or oral argument previously asserted to the court. Civ. L.R. 7-9c). 5 Here, the Court finds plaintiff's motion consists entirely of arguments it previously raised or 6 arguments that could have been raised earlier. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a 7 motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The request for extension of time to fie the Third mended 8 Complaint is moot, as the TAC has been filed. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: October 18, 2022 Site WU tee a SUSAN ILLSTON 13 United States District Judge 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28