Kelley v. AW Distributing, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN KELLEY, et al., Case No. 20-cv-06942-JSW

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DAIHO SANGYO, 9 v. INC.’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 AW DISTRIBUTING, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 295 Defendants. 11

12 13 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion for reconsideration filed by Daiho 14 Sangyo, Inc. (“Daiho”). The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, and 15 the record in this case. Daiho moves the Court to reconsider the Order denying Daiho’s motion 16 for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ negligence claim. Under Local Rule 7-9(b), reconsideration 17 may be sought, inter alia, if there was a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 18 dispositive legal arguments that were presented to the Court before issuance of such order. N.D. 19 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3). 20 Daiho argues the Court manifestly failed to consider dispositive legal arguments because: 21 (1) it concluded that Wisconsin Statute section 895.046 applied to Plaintiffs’ negligence claims; 22 and (2) it determined that Plaintiffs failed to put forth evidence to create a disputed issue of fact 23 about whether Daiho manufactured, distributed, sold, or promoted the can of Ultra Duster 24 involved in the accident. Daiho argues those facts necessarily determine it cannot be held liable 25 on the negligence claims. 26 When the Court granted Daiho leave to file this motion, it noted that if Daiho had 27 additional authority to support its position that non-manufacturer designers cannot be held liable ] with any new authority and relies on the arguments the Court considered, and rejected, when it 2 || denied the motion for summary judgment. 3 A party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration may not reargue any written or 4 || oral argument previously asserted to the Court. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c); see also United States v. 5 || Hector, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 2005), rev ’d on other grounds, 474 F.3d 1150 (9th 6 || Cir. 2007) (“A motion for reconsideration is not to be used as a means to reargue a case or to ask a 7 || court to rethink a decision it has made.”). Although the Court could deny Daiho’s motion on that 8 basis, it will not. However, having considered the arguments anew, it finds no basis to revisit its 9 || decision. 10 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Daiho’s motion for reconsideration. 1] IT ISSO ORDERED. _ @ 12 || Dated: May 18, 2023 / / / Nits I □ 2 \ LOK: : JEFFREY) S/ WHIT United Fptss Distt Judge ry ) /

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28