Liu v. TNC US Holdings

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 9 10 FRANK LIU, Case No. 21-cv-07313-JSW

11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE 12 v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendant. 14

15 16 On September 23, 2022, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of 17 personal jurisdiction and entered judgment in favor of Defendants. On September 25, 2022, 18 Plaintiff filed a notice of motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 19 Under Local Rule 7-9(b), reconsideration may be sought only if one of the following 20 circumstances exists: (1) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court prior 21 to issuance of the order that is the subject of the motion for reconsideration; (2) new material facts 22 or a change of law occurring after issuance of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to 23 consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented to the Court before 24 issuance of such order. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). In addition, a party seeking leave to file a 25 motion for reconsideration may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the 26 Court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c); see also United States v. Hector, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1063 (C.D. Cal. 27 2005), rev’d on other grounds, 474 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A motion for reconsideration is 1 The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to raise any issue regarding a material difference in law 2 or fact from what was previously presented to the Court. Similarly, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 3 that there are new facts or a change in law occurring after issuance of the Court’s order or that the 4 Court manifestly failed to consider materials facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented to 5 the Court. 6 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for 7 reconsideration. 8 10 Dated: October 5, 2022 C | f nt 11 ee |” a EFFR}LY, S,; WHITE 12 i United /States DyArict Judge

Q 16

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