Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05062/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05062-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

Case No.: 5:18-cv-05062-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

1

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN RE GOOGLE LOCATION HISTORY 

LITIGATION Case No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 129

On December 19, 2019, this Court granted Defendant Google LLC’s motion to dismiss. 

See Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 113. In this order, the Court dismissed 

Plaintiffs’ California’s Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”) claim with prejudice and dismissed 

Plaintiffs’ California constitution and common law privacy claims with leave to amend. Plaintiff 

argues the Court should reconsider its decision in light of In re Facebook, Inc. Internet Tracking 

Litigation, 956 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2020). Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration 

(“Mot.”), Dkt. 129. After reviewing Plaintiffs’ motion and In re Facebook, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff has not presented adequate grounds for the Court to reconsider its earlier ruling. The 

Court thus DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

Reconsideration of a final judgment, order, or proceeding is appropriate if (1) at the time of 

the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, 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) the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly 

unjust; or (3) if new material facts emerge or a material change of law occurs after the time of the 

interlocutory order. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Absent these three things, “a motion for 

Case 5:18-cv-05062-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/03/20 Page 1 of 2
Case No.: 5:18-cv-05062-EJD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 

342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 

890 (9th Cir. 2000)). Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 

interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Id. (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted). 

Plaintiff argues that In re Facebook presents a material change in law. Not so. With 

respect to Plaintiffs’ CIPA claim, In re Facebook addressed a completely different type of CIPA 

claim than the one at issue here. Compare In re Facebook, 956 F.3d at 607 (addressing 

wiretapping, Cal. Pen. Code § 631(a)), with In re Google Location History, 428 F. Supp. 3d 185 

(N.D. Cal. 2019) (addressing geolocation tracking, Cal. Pen. Code § 637.7). Moreover, even 

accepting Plaintiffs’ argument that the Court erred when it noted that the Complaint failed to 

allege that Defendant “tracked” users’ movements, that finding is entirely separate from the 

Court’s determination that Defendant did not “attach” an “electronic tracking device” to a “vehicle 

or other moveable thing” within the meaning of CIPA. See Mot. 12–13. As noted, In re 

Facebook says nothing about the Court’s determination that CIPA does not cover the type of 

geolocation tracking/collection at issue. Regarding Plaintiffs’ California constitution and 

common-law privacy claims, the Court again does not find In re Facebook dispositive. Plaintiffs 

seem to read the Court’s dismissal order too narrowly—nothing in the order prevents Plaintiffs 

from amending their Complaint to add details indicating that the type of geolocation tracking and 

collection at issue was comprehensive such that Defendant collected sensitive and confidential 

information. Accordingly, In re Facebook does not present a “material change in law” as to 

Plaintiffs’ CIPA claim and Plaintiffs’ motion for leave is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 3, 2020

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-05062-EJD Document 130 Filed 06/03/20 Page 2 of 2