Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04000/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04000-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA LLC, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-04000-EMC 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Docket No. 340

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Circle Click Media, LLC, Metro Talent, LLC, and CTNY Insurance Group, LLC 

brought a putative class action against Defendants Regus Management Group LLC, Regus 

Business Centre LLC, Regus plc, and HQ Global Workplaces LLC. Docket No. 1. Defendants 

subsequently moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ case for lack of standing, which the Court (per Judge 

Conti) denied. Docket No. 335. Currently before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file 

a motion for reconsideration of the order denying motion to dismiss. Docket No. 340. For the 

reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion for leave. 

II. BACKGROUND

The instant action arose out of Plaintiffs’ lease of Defendants’ commercial office space. 

See Docket No. 335. Defendants advertised fully equipped offices for one all-inclusive monthly 

price. Id. at 3. The named Plaintiffs entered into Office Service Agreements (“OSA”) with the 

Defendant. Id. at 5-6. The OSA describes the monthly office fee, the location of the office space, 

the term of the agreement, and the parties to the agreement. Id. at 3. Following the signing of the 

OSA, Plaintiffs were charged for fees in addition to the expected monthly rental price in the OSA. 

Id. 

Case 3:12-cv-04000-EMC Document 343 Filed 12/10/15 Page 1 of 4
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

For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs filed this suit against Defendants, alleging that Defendants routinely assessed 

Plaintiffs for charges not disclosed in the OSA. Docket No. 65 (Second Amended Complaint 

[“SAC”]). The Court dismissed several of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, leaving the following 

causes of action: (1) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (2) violation of 

California’s False Advertising Law; (3) and unjust enrichment. Docket No. 77. Defendants 

asserted counterclaims in their answer to the SAC, including Plaintiff CTNY’s failure failed to pay 

various fees not described in the OSA. Id. at 7. 

Defendants then moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ case for lack of standing. Docket No. 271. 

On the UCL and FAL claims, the Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing 

because (1) the UCL and FAL apply to any “person who has suffered injury in fact and has lost 

money or property as a result” of the alleged wrongful conduct and (2) Plaintiffs suffered injury in 

fact as a result of the alleged FAL and UCL violations. Docket No. 335 at 9-11. The Court also 

denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim, holding that unjust 

enrichment may survive the pleading stage when pled as an alternative avenue of relief. Docket 

No. 335; Docket No. 59 at 25-26. 

Defendants now seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of 

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing that the Court erred by failing to 

consider material facts and dispositive legal arguments relating to Plaintiffs’ standing to bring 

their claims. Docket No. 340 at 3. Specifically, Defendants argue that the court erred by not 

analyzing the standing issue with respect to each type of fee Defendants have articulated. Id. 

These fees fall into 3 categories: (1) fees Plaintiffs do not allege in the SAC to have paid, and in 

fact were never charged; (2) the fees Plaintiffs allege in the SAC to have paid, but in fact did not 

pay; and (3) the fees Plaintiffs paid. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Local Rule 7-9(a) requires a party to seek leave of Court before filing a motion for 

reconsideration. In a motion for leave, the moving party must demonstrate that (1) a material 

difference in fact and law exists from that which was presented to the Court; (2) new law or 

material facts have emerged; or (3) the Court manifestly failed to consider material facts or 

Case 3:12-cv-04000-EMC Document 343 Filed 12/10/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

For the Northern District of California

dispositive legal arguments. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 

The Rules prohibit a party from repeating arguments already presented to the Court. Civ. 

L.R. 7-9(c). Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used 

sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters. v. 

Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, “a motion for reconsideration 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.” 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Here, Defendants argue that the Court erred by failing to analyze standing as to each 

specific fee. Docket No. 340. To establish standing under the UCL, as amended by Proposition 

64, a plaintiff must: “(1) establish a loss or deprivation of money or property sufficient to qualify 

as injury in fact, i.e., economic injury, and (2) show that that economic injury was the result of, 

i.e., caused by, the unfair business practice or false advertising that is the gravamen of the claim.” 

Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 323 (2011). Proposition 64 thus renders 

standing under the UCL “substantially narrower than federal standing under article III.” Id. at 

324. 

Defendants do not take the position that Plaintiffs lack standing because they did not suffer 

any harm as a result of the charged fees. Docket No. 340. Instead, Defendants propose that the 

Court must examine standing in the context of each individual fee. Defendants fail to provide any 

law in support of this proposition, and the Court did not find any cases suggesting that it is 

appropriate to parse out standing based on every individual fee charged. See id. 

It is clear Plaintiffs have suffered economic injury as a result of Defendants’ allegedly 

deceptive acts. Docket No. 335 at 13. Having signed the OSA and paid some fees which they 

claim exceeded the amounts disclosed in the OSA, Plaintiffs were “deprived of money or 

property” and “required to enter into a transaction, costing money or property, that would have 

otherwise been unnecessary.” Kwikset, 51 Cal. 4th at 323. Here, Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ 

representations that the only rental fees were those established in the OSA. As a result of 

Defendants’ alleged deception of charging fees above and beyond the OSA’s listed rental fee, 

Case 3:12-cv-04000-EMC Document 343 Filed 12/10/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs suffered an injury and established standing to bring their claim. So long as each Plaintiff 

suffered some injury, the precise nature and amount of fees actually paid or charged to each 

Plaintiff goes to damages, not the threshold question of standing.

IV. CONCLUSION

Because there is no clear error or manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive 

arguments, Defendants’ motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

This order disposes of Docket No. 340.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-04000-EMC Document 343 Filed 12/10/15 Page 4 of 4