Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 17:0101 Copyright Infringement (definitions)

---

1

18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA ELIZABETH SIEGLER, et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

SORRENTO THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

TNK THERAPEUTICS, INC., BDL

PRODUCTS, INC., CARGENIX

HOLDINGS LLC, TUFTS MEDICAL

CENTER, PROSPECT

CHARTERCARE ROGER WILLIAMS

MEDICAL CENTER LLC, HENRY JI,

RICHARD PAUL JUNGHANS,

STEVEN C. KATZ, and THE BOARD

OF DIRECTORS OF SORRENTO

THERAPEUTICS, INC.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR

(1)RECONSIDERATION OF 

ORDER DISMISSING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

CHANGE OF VENUE, AND

(2)LEAVE TO FILE 10 EXCESS 

PAGES IN REPLY

[ECF No. 138.]

On May 17, 2019, Defendants BDL Products, Inc., Cargenix Holdings LLC, Henry 

Ji, Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc., and TNK Therapeutics, Inc. (“Defendants”) filed a motion 

to dismiss the second amended complaint. ECF No. 90. On August 2, 2019, the Court

granted that motion, ECF No. 126, and entered judgement against Plaintiff Sara Elizabeth 

Siegler (“Plaintiff”), ECF No. 127. On August 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for 

reconsideration of the decision to grant defendants’ motion. ECF No. 134. The Court has 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 141 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

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

ordered briefing on Plaintiff’s motion and a hearing is now scheduled for November 15, 

2019. ECF No. 139.

On August 27, 2019, Plaintiff filed an ‘emergency’ motion requesting a postjudgment change of venue. ECF No. 133. On August 29, 2019, the Court denied 

Plaintiff’s venue motion. ECF No. 135. On September 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a seventh 

omnibus motion requesting (1) reconsideration of the Court’s order denying change of 

venue, ECF No. 135, and (2) leave to file excess pages in reply on the briefing pertaining 

to her motion for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing the case. See ECF No. 

138.

For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Seventh Omnibus Motion, 

ECF No. 138, in its entirety.

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration 

Plaintiff asks that this Court reconsider its decision to deny a change of venue. See

ECF No. 138-1 at 2. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that the Court has acted with “bias, 

misconduct and/or prejudice” in this matter and failed to accord her appropriate treatment 

as a pro se litigant. Id. at 2-4. Plaintiff’s claims are devoid of merit.

As a threshold matter, Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally deficient. Under Local 

Civil Rule 7.1(i)(1), a party may apply for reconsideration of an order only if the moving 

party provides the court with an affidavit setting forth “what new or different facts and 

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown.” Here, Plaintiff 

has filed no affidavit.

In addition, Plaintiff has filed the instant motion without first seeking a hearing 

date from chambers as is required under the local civil rules. See Local Civil Rule 7.1(b). 

The hearing scheduled for November 15, 2019 pertains only to Plaintiff’s motion to 

reconsider the Court’s order dismissing her case, see ECF Nos. 126, 133, 139, and not to 

the instant motion. 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 141 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

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 alternative, the Court denies Plaintiff’s claims on the merits. “[A] motion for 

reconsideration is not an opportunity to renew arguments considered and rejected by the 

Court, nor is it an opportunity for a party to reargue a motion because it is dissatisfied 

with the original outcome.” Popescu v. California Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., No. 

13CV564 BEN (JLB), 2014 WL 12664803, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2014), aff'd, 670 F. 

App’x 580 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Brady v. Grendene USA, Inc., No. 3:12-CV-0604-

GPC-KSC, 2015 WL 11216706, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015); FTC v. Neovi, Inc., No. 

06–CV–1952–JLS JMA, 2009 WL 56130, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2009).

Here, Plaintiff asserts no new arguments and merely repeats the arguments 

presented in her original motion for change of venue. ECF No. 133-1 at 1-8. As stated in 

this Court’s order denying plaintiff’s initial venue motion, the Court has worked 

diligently to consider Plaintiff’s arguments in the best possible light and treated her 

leniently in light of her status as a pro se litigant. Although the Court sympathizes with 

Plaintiff’s pro se status, Plaintiff’s arguments remain unavailing.

Plaintiff, moreover, fails to remedy the deficiencies in her initial arguments. 

Plaintiff neither identifies the district to which she wishes her case be transferred, nor 

explains how that transfer would be justified in light of the applicable legal factors: “(1) 

plaintiffs’ choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the 

witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the 

applicable law, (6) feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in 

the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum.” Vu 

v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc., 602 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (N.D. Cal. 2009); see also

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986); Byler 

v. Deluxe Corp., 222 F. Supp. 3d 885, 903 (S.D. Cal. 2016); Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC v. 

Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 88 F. Supp. 3d 1156, 1160 (S.D. Cal. 2015). As stated in the

Court’s prior order, the factors weigh against Plaintiff’s motion. See ECF No. 135 at 3-4. 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 141 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB

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

Consequently, upon reconsideration, this Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for 

reconsideration of the order denying a change of venue.

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Plaintiff also seeks leave to file excess pages in her forthcoming reply on the 

briefing pertaining to her motion for reconsideration of the judgment. ECF No. 134.

Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(h), a litigant may not file a reply memorandum 

exceeding ten pages in length. Nonetheless, a court may permit lengthier briefing at its 

discretion. See Traylor Bros. v. San Diego Unified Port Dist., No. 08-CV-1019-L WVG, 

2012 WL 1019966, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2012) (citing United States v. W.R. Grace, 

526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008)) (en banc) (“whether to grant leave to exceed the page 

limits set forth in the Local Civil Rules appears to be at the full discretion of the Court”). 

This is appropriate where the movant adequately explains the need for additional pages. 

See, e.g., Fleming v. Coverstone, No. 08CV355 WQH (NLS), 2009 WL 764887 at *2

(S.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2009) (permitting an 11-page reply where necessary to address 

defendant’s response). 

Here, Plaintiff only offers the vague justification that “[j]udicial quality requires” 

ten additional pages. See ECF No. 18-1 at 7-8. Granting this request would double the 

page length of her reply. As Plaintiff has failed to explain in sufficient detail why this is 

necessary, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for failing to show good cause.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Seventh Omnibus 

Motion. ECF No. 138. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 141 Filed 09/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4