Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02061/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02061-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 28:1441 - Petition for Removal: SEC Act

---

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

FRANK SCOGNAMILLO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON

LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C03-2061 TEH 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

AS TO DEFENDANTS SHELL AND

LONGINOTTI

On August 25, 2005, this Court dismissed with prejudice all claims against

Defendants John F. Longinotti, West Shell III, and Frank Quattrone. Defendants Longinotti

and Shell have now moved for entry of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

54(b), which provides that a court “may direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more

but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no

just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” In opposition,

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration but state that, should the Court deny

such leave, Plaintiffs do not oppose granting entry of judgment as to Defendants Shell and

Longinotti. After carefully reviewing the parties’ written arguments, the Court finds oral

argument to be unnecessary and hereby cancels the hearing scheduled for November 7, 2005. 

With good cause appearing for the reasons discussed below, the Court now DENIES

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration and GRANTS Defendants

Shell and Longinotti’s motion for entry of judgment as to the claims asserted against them.

Case 3:03-cv-02061-TEH Document 158 Filed 10/26/05 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting

the motions to dismiss brought by Defendants Shell and Longinotti. In particular, Plaintiffs

seek leave to amend the complaint to state claims against Shell and Longinotti under the

California Corporations Code. Plaintiffs bring their request under Civil Local Rule

7-9(b)(3). Proposed Mot. for Reconsid. at 1. That rule requires the party seeking leave to

file a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order to “specifically show: . . . (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.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

The Court finds no merit to Plaintiffs’ contention that they have satisfied the

requirements of Rule 7-9(b)(3). Rather than identifying material facts or dispositive legal

arguments presented to the Court prior to the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motions to

dismiss, Plaintiffs seek to introduce new arguments – arguments that could and should have

been raised in Plaintiffs’ brief opposing Defendants’ motions to dismiss or, at the very least,

at the hearing on Defendants’ motions. Indeed, Plaintiffs concede in their proposed motion

for reconsideration that they “failed to cite” and “should have cited” certain code sections in

response to Defendants’ arguments. Proposed Mot. for Recons. at 4-5. As the Court noted

when it dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims against Shell and Longinotti under section 25403 of the

California Corporations Code:

Shell and Longinotti argue that Plaintiffs’ section 25403 claim

must fail because this code section does not provide for a private

right of action. . . . Plaintiffs completely failed to respond to

Defendants’ argument; instead, Plaintiffs only responded to the

argument raised in the CSFB Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

The Court construes Plaintiffs’ failure to respond, either in their

papers or at oral argument, as a concession, and the Court

therefore GRANTS the motion to dismiss this claim against Shell

and Longinotti with prejudice.

Aug. 25, 2005 Order at 14. Granting leave to file a motion for reconsideration is not

warranted when a party has had ample opportunity to respond to an opposing party’s

arguments and simply failed to do so. Accordingly, with good cause appearing, Plaintiffs’

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

Case 3:03-cv-02061-TEH Document 158 Filed 10/26/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Motion for Entry of Judgment as to Defendants Shell and Longinotti

Because the Court has denied Plaintiffs’ request to file a motion for reconsideration of

the Court’s order dismissing all claims against Defendants Shell and Longinotti, Plaintiffs

have no opposition to Defendants’ motion for entry of judgment. For the reasons set forth in

Defendants’ moving papers, the Court agrees with the parties that there is no just reason for

delay in entry of judgment as to Defendants Shell and Longinotti. Accordingly, Defendants’

motion is GRANTED, and the Court directs entry of final judgment as to Defendants Shell

and Longinotti pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Defendants Shell and

Longinotti shall submit a proposed judgment, approved as to form by Plaintiffs, within one

week of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 10/26/05 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:03-cv-02061-TEH Document 158 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 3