Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04232/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04232-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1114 Trademark Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited. 1

Case No. C 05-4232 JF (HRL) 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

(JFLC3)

**E-Filed 10/15/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

PHASE FORWARD INCORPORATED, a

Delaware Corporation

 Plaintiff,

 v.

MARY NOEL ADAMS, individually and d/b/a

PHASE FORWARD,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-4232 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 1

FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Phase Forward Incorporated (“PFI) seeks leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of this Court’s July 24, 2007 Order (“Order”). In the Order, the Court granted

summary judgment as to Count III of PFI’s amended complaint based on PFI’s representations to

the Court that the claim could not be pursued under California law. Nine days after the issuance

of the Order, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Jada Toys v. Mattel, Inc., 2007 WL 2199286

(9th Cir. August 2, 2007). 

Case 5:05-cv-04232-JF Document 76 Filed 10/15/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Case No. C 05-4232 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

(JFLC3)

A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is governed by Civ. L. R. 7-9,

which requires that the party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration must show:

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, 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. The party also must show

that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration

did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring

after the time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such

interlocutory order.

PFI asserts that Jada Toys is an intervening change in law that affects the legal analysis of Count

III. Accordingly, PFI’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. PFI

shall file its motion for reconsideration on or before October 22, 2007. Defendant shall have

twenty (20) days to respond. PFI shall have one week from the filing date of Defendant’s

response to file any reply. After receipt of the parties’ papers, the Court will take the matter

under submission without oral argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 15, 2007 __________________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04232-JF Document 76 Filed 10/15/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Case No. C 05-4232 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

(JFLC3)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Randy Scott Erlewine rse@phillaw.com 

David Given dmg@phillaw.com, 

Keith Lee leeke@pepperlaw.com, sanfordl@pepperlaw.com 

Spencer Martinez scm@phillaw.com, 

Laura Thompson LThompsonesq@comcast.net 

M. Kelly Tillery tilleryk@pepperlaw.com, carrollp@pepperlaw.com 

Notice will be delivered by other means to:

Nathan W. Dean 

Pepper Hamilton LLP

3000 Two Logan Square

Eighteenth & Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Matthew Stavish 

6550 Rock Spring Drive

Suite 240

Bethesda, MA 20817

Case 5:05-cv-04232-JF Document 76 Filed 10/15/07 Page 3 of 3