Nanometrics, Incorporated v. Optical Solutions, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 Lead Case No. 18-cv-00417-BLF 7 OPTICAL SOLUTIONS Case No. 18-cv-03276-BLF INCORPORATED, 8 Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ITS 10 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION NANOMETRICS INCORPORATED, 11 Defendant. 12 13 On June 23, 2020, this Court granted Defendant Nanometrics’s motion to dismiss 14 Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. See Order, ECF 87. Now—nearly two months later and more 15 than a month after Plaintiff filed its fourth amended complaint—before the Court is Defendant’s 16 motion for leave to file its motion for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss 17 the third amended complaint. See Mot., ECF 98. The Civil Local Rules provide that no response 18 need be filed and no hearing need be held with respect to a motion for leave to file a motion for 19 reconsideration. Civ. L.R. 7-9(d). 20 A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed prior to the entry of a 21 final judgment in the case. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). As a threshold matter, “The moving party must 22 specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” Id. (emphasis added). A motion for 23 reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy.” Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 24 (9th Cir. 2000). Whether to grant leave to file under Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court’s sound 25 discretion. See Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v. Del Monte Corp.-USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 26 2014). 27 The Court does not find reasonable diligence on the part of Defendant in bringing this motion 1 so long after the Court’s initial order, arguing about a version of the complaint that is no longer 2 || operative. Further, in issuing its order on the third amended complaint, the Court necessarily re- 3 evaluated its prior rulings in light of the allegations in the third amended complaint and the authority 4 || cited by the parties. Further reconsideration is not warranted. The Court will consider the viability 5 of the fourth amended complaint on its merits. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion 6 || for leave to file its motion for reconsideration. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 || Dated: August 17, 2020 kom Lh han ty) 10 NV BETH LABSON FREEMAN 11 United States District Judge 12 13 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28