Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05051/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05051-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

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

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEORGE PAZUNIAK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-05051-JST 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: ECF No. 83

Currently before the Court is a document filed by Plaintiff Lakshmi Arunachalam titled 

“Plaintiff Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam’s Request for Re-consideration of Motion to Disqualify 

Honorable Judge Jon S. Tigar Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 and 28 U.S.C. § 144.” ECF No. 83. 

Civil Local Rule 7-9 governs motions for reconsideration and Rule 7-9(b) provides three grounds 

for bringing such a motion. Although Arunachalam does not invoke Rule 7-9, she appears to 

argue that the Court’s previous order at ECF No. 79 represented “a manifest failure by the Court to 

consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.” Arunachalam’s request for reconsideration 

asserts that the Court “failed to note” numerous considerations bearing upon the propriety of 

disqualification. 

After review of Arunachalam’s request, the Court concludes the prior order did not contain 

any “manifest error.” The request is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05051-JST Document 85 Filed 02/18/15 Page 1 of 1