Mahon v. Mainsail LLC

Opinion

MARK MAHON, CASE NO. 4:20-cv-01527-YGR

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION vs. FOR RECONSIDERATION; ORDER RE BRIEFING Re: Dkt. Nos. 78, 79, 83 Defendants.

To Plaintiff, Defendants, and Counsel of Record in this case and related cases 4:20-cv-01523, 4:20-cv-01525, 4:20-cv-01527, 4:20-cv-01530, 4:20-cv-01534: Plaintiff Mark Mahon has filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration, requesting that the Court reconsider its Order dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. Nos. 78 (“Mot.”), 77 (“Order”).) Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality of conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)). Under the local rules, a party seeking consideration must show: (1) that “a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought”; (2) “[t]he emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after time of such order;” or (3) “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). A party may not repeat previously made arguments. Civ. L. R. 7-9(c). Here, Plaintiff does not specifically address these standards, but argues that the Court’s decision is “manifestly unjust” because “the Court did not specify that it wanted specific elements of the provisions explained to it,” and he was prepared to do so at oral argument. (Mot. at 3-4.) this argument previously. During the motion to dismiss briefing, Plaintiff argued that his claims against Defendants required interpretation of the indemnification and financial terms provisions of Defendants’ agreement with Google LLC, which included a forum selection clause. (See Dkt. No. 69.) The Court rejected the argument because Plaintiff had not explained how his claims would be affected by these provisions. (Order at 1.) Second, reconsideration is unlikely to change the outcome here. The indemnification and financial term clauses concern Google’s claims against Defendants, not Plaintiff’s claims against either Google or Defendants. As such, the Court did not fail to consider material facts previously presented to it. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.1 The Court further addresses the excessive briefing in this case: Defendants have filed an opposition (Dkt. No. 81) and Plaintiff has filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 82.) The local civil rules do not contemplate an opposition to a motion for leave and certainly do not contemplate a reply. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(d). Moreover, Plaintiff has filed a declaration improperly raising arguments. (Dkt. No. 86.) Accordingly, the opposition, reply, and declaration are stricken as filed in violation of the rules. Further, the parties in this and the related cases have taken liberties with the rules and are prone to excessive, unwarranted, and in this Court’s view, unauthorized briefing. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that if a motion is filed, no party shall file supplemental briefing or it will be stricken automatically. Thus: 1. Motions for leave shall be limited to one filing. No opposition or reply may be filed. No supplemental briefing may be filing unless expressly ordered by the Court. 2. Administrative motions shall be limited to one motion and one opposition. No reply may be filed. No supplemental briefing may be filing unless expressly ordered by the Court. 1 3. Properly noticed motions shall be limited to one motion, one opposition, and one 2 reply. No supplemental briefing may be filing unless expressly ordered by the 3 Court. No motion for leave to file supplemental briefing or evidence may be filed. 4 This Order shall apply to the related cases: 4:20-cv-01523, 4:20-cv-01525, 4:20-cv-01527, 4:20- 5 cv-01530, 4:20-cv-01534. The clerk shall post a copy in each docket 6 Failure to abide by this Order will result in appropriate sanctions. 7 This Order terminates docket numbers 78, 79, and 83. 8 IT Is SO ORDERED. g || Dated: April , 2021 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 1] 12

2B

15 16

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