5:18-cv-02585
N.D. Cal.Feb 12, 2019Background
- Citcon sued RiverPay, Hua, Shi, and Miao alleging multiple claims including federal and California trade-secret misappropriation, conversion, defamation, computer crimes, interference claims, and unfair competition; three iterations of the complaint were filed.
- The Court previously dismissed or sustained various claims in part after motions to dismiss the First and Second Amended Complaints, specifying which trade-secret theories and defendants could proceed and which claims were dismissed with or without leave to amend.
- Citcon sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order on the Second Amended Complaint, asserting the Court failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments and contending the pleadings met the Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard.
- Citcon primarily argued the Court misapplied the plausibility standard and relied on a “one plausible explanation” characterization from regional authority.
- The Court treated Citcon’s submission under Civil Local Rule 7-9 and found Citcon offered no new facts, merely repeated prior allegations, and failed to show diligence or justification for newly cited cases that existed before the Court’s order.
- The Court denied leave to file a motion for reconsideration, declined to consider Citcon’s unnecessary reply brief, and refused sanctions or striking but disregarded the reply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to file a motion for reconsideration is warranted under Civil L.R. 7‑9(b)(3) (court failed to consider material facts or dispositive arguments) | Court overlooked material facts and arguments already presented; dismissal or dismissal without leave was incorrect | Court already considered the facts/arguments in lengthy orders and at hearing; no showing Court failed to consider material matters | Denied — Citcon only repeated prior facts and did not show the Court failed to consider them |
| Whether newly cited caselaw justifies reconsideration under L.R. 7‑9(b)(1) or (b)(2) | New cases showing a different plausibility standard support reconsideration | Cases cited were available before the order; Citcon did not show reasonable diligence in failing to cite them earlier | Denied — Citcon did not show the cases were newly discovered or that it exercised reasonable diligence |
| Whether the court misapplied Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard (including reliance on “one plausible explanation” phrasing) | Pleadings plausibly alleged defendants’ liability under Iqbal/Twombly and regional precedents | Court properly assessed whether factual allegations support a reasonable inference of liability; cited authority distinguishes the contexts | Denied — Court found pleadings insufficient for reasonable inference of liability in dismissed claims |
| Whether Citcon’s reply brief (filed despite no order) should be struck or sanctioned | Reply was filed to respond to defendants’ opposition; should be considered | Local Rule 7‑9(d) allows no response unless ordered; defendants moved to strike | Court disregarded the reply, denied motion to strike, and awarded no sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requiring plausible claim under Twombly)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (antitrust pleading standard articulating plausibility test)
- Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2000) (motions for reconsideration are extraordinary; new evidence or clear error required)
- 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 1999) (reconsideration inappropriate absent newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening law)