Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04057/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04057-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1051 Trademark Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY J. WRENN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-04057 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

GRANTING MOTION TO LIFT

STAY

Now before the Court is the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration filed by

Defendant Boy Scouts of America. Defendant requests reconsideration of the Court order

issued on August 28, 2007, granting Plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay. Having carefully

reviewed Defendant’s papers and considered the relevant legal authority, and good cause

appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration.

A motion for reconsideration may be made on one of three grounds: (1) a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court, which, in the

exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for reconsideration did not know at the time

of the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest

failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before

entry of the order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). In addition, the moving party may not reargue any

written or oral argument previously asserted to the Court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). 

Case 3:03-cv-04057-JSW Document 55 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendant moves for reconsideration for the Court to consider dispositive legal

arguments that it failed to consider initially with regard to the motion to lift the stay. Defendant

claims that under Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 152 (1999), the Court should apply the

abuse of discretion standard of review to factual findings rendered by the Trademark Trial and

Appeal Board (“TTAB”), as with any other administrative agency. Although the present case

does not come to the Court from an appeal of the TTAB’s decision, the Court intends to accord

due deference to the factual findings made by the TTAB in the related matter. However,

because of the significant delay in the administrative proceedings, the Court has lifted the stay

of this action. 

The authority cited in Defendant’s motion for reconsideration clearly states that it is

within the district court’s broad discretion to determine whether a stay is advisable under the

circumstances. Citicasters Co. v. Country Club Communications, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

17238, at *4-5, 44 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1223 (C.D. Cal. 1997), citing Clinton v. Jones, 137 L. Ed.

2d 945 (1997). The Clinton Court specifically recognized that a stay may be acceptable where

the court properly takes into account the effect of delay and the stage of proceedings. Id. 

Here, although the Court initially determined that granting the parties’ stipulated stay of

this matter was the most efficient course, the passage of several years without final

administrative decision has undermined the Court’s initial determination. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is

DENIED. In addition, the Court sets a further case management conference in order to proceed

with this matter for November 2, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. A joint case management statement shall be

filed no later than October 26, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04057-JSW Document 55 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 2