Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02661/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02661-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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 1 The Court notes that pursuant to Northern District Civil Local Rule 3-12(e), a

party is supposed to lodge copies of any opposition filed to an administrative motion to

determine whether cases are related “with the Chambers of all Judges identified in the

motion.”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GO COMPUTER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-02661 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION AND

DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff’s motion for leave to

file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s Order relating this case to Go Computer, Inc. v.

Microsoft Corporation, 05-3356. Because the motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration sets forth both the reasons Plaintiff seeks leave for reconsideration and the

reasons for its opposition to relating these cases, the Court shall construe the motion for leave to

file a motion for reconsideration as the motion for reconsideration. Microsoft has filed an

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion, and the Court deems the matter submitted. 

The Court shall grant Plaintiff’s leave to file the motion for reconsideration, in light of

the fact that the Court’s Order was based in part upon its belief that Plaintiff had not filed an

opposition to the motion.1 

The motion for reconsideration is denied. Plaintiff’s position is that this Court does not

have jurisdiction to determine whether these cases were related because the earlier filed case had
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation. Local Rule 3-12(b) provides

for filing an administrative motion seeking to relate a case that “is or was pending in this

District.” Local Rule 3-12(f) provides that “the Judge in this District who is assigned to the

earliest filed case will decide if the cases are or are not related.” Thus, the fact that the earlier

filed case had been transferred did not preclude this Court from ruling on the motion. As such,

the Court shall not reconsider its decision on that basis.

Moreover, the Court has considered the opposition attached to Plaintiff’s motion for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration and concludes that nothing set forth therein would

have altered its decision to relate the cases.

As such, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Case Number 05-3356 remains

assigned to this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2005 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE