Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SHEET METAL WORKERS NATIONAL 10 PENSION FUND, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04737-RS

11 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, et al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 This putative class action alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in 17 relation to Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto. On October 19, 2021, Defendants’ motion to dismiss 18 was denied. Dkt. 90. The Court noted, though, that certain theories the Plaintiffs advanced were 19 not viable. Defendants now move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Civil Local 20 Rule 7-9(b)(3). Dkt. 93. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Dkt. 95. 21 A party who wishes to move for reconsideration of an interlocutory order must first seek 22 leave to file such a motion under Local Rule 7-9. Under Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), the party must show 23 “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which 24 were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” 25 Defendants have not satisfied the Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) requirements. Defendants argue that 26 the Complaint does not adequately plead falsity as to statements concerning due diligence and that 27 the Complaint does not adequately plead scienter, repeating the same arguments they made in 1 1180, 1193 (9th Cir. 2021), Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension 2 Fund, 575 U.S. 175, 194 (2015), and City of Dearborn Heights v. Align Technology, 856 F.3d 605, 3 615-16 (9th Cir. 2017), do not establish that Plaintiffs have not pled falsity with particularity as to 4 || Defendants’ statements concerning pre-merger due diligence. These cases, and Defendants’ 5 arguments on this issue, were considered when ruling on the motion to dismiss. Similarly, the 6 argument that Plaintiffs have not pled a legally cognizable motive was considered, and rejected, 7 || when ruling on the motion to dismiss. 8 As Defendants’ arguments were considered when ruling on the motion to dismiss, the 9 motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) is denied. 10 || Motions for reconsideration are designed to bring to the Court’s attention clear instances of missed 11 arguments, not simply to make the very same points but more loudly. Sadly, Defendants’ effort 12 || here falls into the latter category.

|) 1, ISSO ORDERED.

a 16 Dated: November 15, 2021 ,

18 Chiet United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FoR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FoR RECONSIDERATION . CASE No. 20-cv-04737-RS