Conner v. Quora, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JERI CONNOR, Case No. 18-cv-07597-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE A 9 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

10 QUORA, INC., 11 Defendant.

12 13 Defendant Quora filed a motion asking for, among other things, leave to file for 14 reconsideration of one fact issue that was before the Court for Quora’s motion for summary 15 judgment. See Mot., ECF 214. The Court DENIES Quora’s request seeking leave to file such a 16 motion. 17 Trial courts have the inherent power to reconsider, set aside, or amend interlocutory orders 18 at any time prior to entry of a final judgment. Meas v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 681 F. Supp. 19 2d 1128, 1143 (N.D. Cal. 2010) (citing Sch. Dist. No. 5 v. Lundgren, 259 F.2d 101, 105 (9th Cir. 20 1958)). “In this judicial district, Civil Local Rule 7–9 provides a procedure whereby a litigant 21 dissatisfied with an interlocutory ruling may seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration in this 22 court.” Microsoft Corp. v. FIFAVIP Co., No. 17-CV-02887-LHK, 2017 WL 4517060, at *3 (N.D. 23 Cal. Oct. 10, 2017) (citation omitted). 24 Civil Local Rule 7-9 specifies the requirements for such a motion. The moving party must 25 show “reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” as well as one of the following: 26 (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from 27 that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 1 diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of 2 the interlocutory order; or 3 (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such 4 order; or 5 (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments 6 which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 7 || Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 8 Here, Quora argues that the Court erroneously relied on the fact that $1 million in fraud 9 || protection was not available to Connor for free to find that Connor’s purchase of enhanced 10 || monitoring was reasonable and necessary. Mot. 10. Quora misconstrues the Court’s Order. The 11 Court did not make any factual determination on this issue, but rather determined that there were 12 || disputed material facts that prevented summary adjudication. Therefore, Quora’s motion to seek 5 13 leave to file for reconsideration is DENIED. The other issues raised in Quora’s motion will be 14 || considered when briefing on the issues has concluded. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 || Dated: January 13, 2020 kom Lh han én) 18 MANS BETH LABSON FREEMAN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28