Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05454/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05454-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 140
Nature of Suit: Negotiable Instruments
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTA FE POINTE, LP, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREYSTONE SERVICING CORP., INC.,

ET AL.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Case No. C-07-05454 JCS

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION [Docket No. 50]

On February 4, 2008, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to transfer this action to the

Southern District of New York. On March 26, 2008, Defendants filed a motion for leave to file a

motion for reconsideration. The Court granted that motion on April 3, 2008 and set a hearing on the

Motion for Reconsideration for May 9, 2008. In the meantime, a motion to transfer to this Court

was taken under submission in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York in Greystone CDE, LLC v. Santa Fe Pointe, LP, Case No. 07-8377 (“the New York Action”). 

In order to give the New York Court the opportunity to rule on that motion, the Court continued the

hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration to July 25, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. Subsequently, however,

both Plaintiffs and Defendants sent letters to the Court (docket numbers 59 & 60) addressing the

implications of the Court’s continuance for settlement and discovery. 

Having carefully considered the issues raised in the parties’ letters and in the briefs on the

Motion for Reconsideration, the Court is now persuaded that it should not defer ruling on the Motion

for Reconsideration. Further, the Court finds that a hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration is not

required and therefore vacates the July 25, 2008 hearing pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The

Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. 

Case 3:07-cv-05454-MMC Document 61 Filed 05/05/08 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

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule7-9(b)(2), a party may bring a motion to reconsider on the basis

of “new material facts.” Defendants argue that this standard is met because Plaintiff has filed

counterclaims in the New York Action and it is now undisputed that the issues and parties in the two

actions are identical. According to Defendants, “all of [the] salient facts have changed since the

entry of this Court’s February 4 Order” and therefore, the Court should transfer the action to the

Southern District of New York. The Court disagrees. 

In its February 4 Order, the Court considered numerous factors in determining that a transfer

under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) was not warranted. These included where the relevant agreements were

negotiated and were to be performed, the contacts of parties and witnesses to the two fora and which

states’ law would likely be applied. The Court also based its decision on the conclusion that the

forum selection clause cited by Defendants was permissive. These considerations remain

unchanged, notwithstanding the fact that the New York Action now mirrors this action. Nor is the

Court persuaded that the case management challenges posed by the dual actions justify a reversal by

this Court of its earlier decision denying Defendants’ motion to transfer. Accordingly, the Motion

for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2008 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05454-MMC Document 61 Filed 05/05/08 Page 2 of 2