Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05334/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05334-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

United States District Court

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 

SUMMA RESOURCE HOLDINGS 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARBON ENERGY LIMITED,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05334-TEH 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On May 5, 2016, this Court dismissed the above-captioned action on the basis of 

forum non conveniens. Docket No. 37. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party may 

move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under one of three categories. Here, 

Plaintiff files the instant motion based upon “a manifest failure by the Court to consider 

material facts or dispositive legal arguments” which were presented to the Court. See Civ. 

L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Plaintiff contends that the Court applied “an incorrect standard of 

deference” to its choice of forum in the Court’s forum non conveniens analysis. 

In its dismissal order, the Court considered and discussed the legal arguments raised 

by Plaintiff in connection with the instant motion. See Order at 6-7. The Court cited 

Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2011), which Plaintiff 

identifies in support of its contention that the Court applied an incorrect standard. 

Furthermore, the Court explained its reasoning for affording slightly less deference to 

Plaintiff’s choice of forum in its forum non conveniens balancing analysis; therefore it 

clearly considered Plaintiff’s argument. A motion for reconsideration is not the proper 

instrument for disagreement with the Court’s analysis. See AF Holdings LLC v. Trinh, No. 

12-CV-2392-CRB, 2012 WL 6087269, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2012). 

Case 3:15-cv-05334-TEH Document 41 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff has failed to show a manifest failure by the Court such that granting leave 

to file a motion for reconsideration would be warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 05/16/16 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05334-TEH Document 41 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 2