Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01059/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-01059-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMES MCGIBNEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THOMAS RETZLAFF,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-01059-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

[Re: ECF 201]

Before the Court is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by pro se defendant Thomas 

Retzlaff. Def.’s Mot., ECF 201. Defendant seeks reconsideration of the portion of this Court’s 

order denying his motion for sanctions against plaintiffs James McGibney and ViaView, Inc. 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. See Order at 1, ECF 197. 

Defendant argues that a recent state court finding that ViaView, Inc. is not licensed to do business 

in the state of California and lacks the capacity to maintain suit in this state shows that Plaintiffs’

“filing of this lawsuit in the name of this illegal corporation was in bad faith and in violation of 

Rule 11,” thus warranting reconsideration of this Court’s denial of sanctions. See Def.’s Mot. 2-5, 

7 (and attached exhibit). 

The substantive standard governing reconsideration of an interlocutory order is the same as 

that which governs motions to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e). Motions for 

reconsideration are disfavored and “should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, 

unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1253, 

1254 (9th Cir.1999) (per curiam) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The rule “may not be 

used to relitigate old matters, or raise arguments or present evidence that could have been raised 

Case 5:14-cv-01059-BLF Document 202 Filed 09/11/15 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prior to entry of final judgment.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008).

Since at least as early as August 2014, Defendant has known and argued to this Court that 

ViaView, Inc. is not licensed to do business in California. See Pl.’s Mot. to Dismiss for Lack of 

Personal Jurisdiction at 6, ECF 23 (“According to the California Secretary of State’s Office, 

ViaView, Inc. is not a California business.”). That a California court recently agreed with 

Defendant’s assessment does not constitute new evidence; it merely affirms the evidence that 

Defendant had since August 2014. Because Defendant has identified no highly unusual 

circumstances or new evidence, the Court declines to reconsider its order denying Defendant’s 

motion for sanctions.

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-01059-BLF Document 202 Filed 09/11/15 Page 2 of 2