Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00967/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00967-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On September 1, 2015, Defendants filed an ex parte application for an order modifying the 

preliminary injunction “to prohibit plaintiff from replicating the codes or offering access to 

defendants’ competitors.” (Doc. 35 at 1) Defendants contend “the preliminary injunction is not 

narrowly tailored to address only those damages suffered by plaintiff, and that defendants will suffer 

harm if this matter is not heard prior to the posting of a bond.” (Id. at 2) According to Defendants, 

“the Court should reconsider its order granting the injunction because it is manifestly unjust.” (Doc. 

35-1 at 5) Based upon the relief requested, the Court construes ex parte application as a request for 

reconsideration, which must be filed as a motion in accordance with Local Rule 230(g). 

Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality 

and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003). A 

VAQUERO ENERGY, INC., 

 Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF HERDA, an individual and doing 

business as INTEGRATED CONTROL 

SYSTEMS, BRAXBRO, INC., a Nevada 

corporation and doing business as 

INTEGRATED CONTROL SYSTEMS, a 

corporation ,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00967 - JLT

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE 

APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER MODIFYING 

THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

(Doc. 35)

Case 1:15-cv-00967-JLT Document 38 Filed 09/03/15 Page 1 of 2
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

reconsideration motion “should not be granted absent highly unusual circumstances.” McDowell v. 

Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 1255 (9th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1059 (1989). A reconsideration 

motion “is not a vehicle for relitigating old issues, presenting the case under new theories, securing a 

rehearing on the merits, or otherwise taking a ‘second bite at the apple.’” See Sequa Corp. v. GBJ 

Corp., 156 F.3d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1998). “A party seeking reconsideration must show more than a 

disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by 

the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the moving party’s burden.” United 

States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F.Supp.2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (internal citations 

omitted). “To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce the 

court to reverse its prior decision.” Id.

Reconsideration is appropriate if the court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) 

has committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) is presented with an 

intervening change in controlling law. School District 1J, Multnomah County v. AC and S, Inc., 5 F.3d 

1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1236 (1994). In addition, there may be other highly 

unusual circumstances warranting reconsideration. Id. Under this Court’s Local Rule 230(j), a party 

seeking reconsideration must demonstrate “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to 

exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the 

motion” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” 

Here, Defendants argue the preliminary injunction was “manifestly unjust” and “should be 

reconsidered and modified to protect [D]efendants.” (Doc. 35-1 at 5) Notably, however, the Court 

ordered Plaintiff to post a bond of $200,000 given Defendants’ assertion that they were entitled to 

copyright protections. Because Defendants show no more than a disagreement with the Court’s prior 

order and failed to comply with Local Rule 230(j) governing motions for reconsideration, the ex parte 

application is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 3, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00967-JLT Document 38 Filed 09/03/15 Page 2 of 2