Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01681-5/pdf.json

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

---

CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-NLS

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

SARAH ELIZABETH SIEGLER and 

Sara Elizabeth Siegler,

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 

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO MAKE 

DEFINITE AND CERTAIN

AND RECONSIDERATION

[ECF NO. 80];

(2) DENYING IN PART AND 

GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S APRIL 10, 2019

MOTION [ECF NO. 84].

On March 13, 2019, Plaintiff Sara Siegler filed a Motion To Make Definite 

and Certain and Reconsideration, which was noticed for hearing on April 12, 2019. 

(ECF No. 80.) Both of those requests pertained to the Court’s order, dated 

February 13, 2019, in which the Court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss 

various parts of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, some with leave to amend, and 

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 85 Filed 04/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
- 1 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

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

some with prejudice. (ECF No. 75.) Defendants filed a joint opposition to 

Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 82), which Plaintiff replied to. (ECF No. 83). 

On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to (1) reschedule the hearing on 

her Motion to Make Definite and Certain and Reconsideration, (2) for leave to 

participate in the hearing remotely, and (3) to extend the deadline for the filing of 

the second amended complaint. (ECF No. 84.) 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court finds the motions at issue 

suitable for adjudication without oral argument. (ECF No. 80.) For the reasons 

below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Make Definite and Certain and 

Reconsideration. The Court further DENIES in part as moot Plaintiff’s April 10, 

2019 motion and GRANTS in part Plaintiff’s request for a deadline extension on 

her second amended complaint. (ECF No. 84.) 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Make Definite and Certain

In the first part of her motion, Plaintiff seeks “clarification” from the Court 

about how to conform her anticipated second amended complaint to the Court’s 

February 13, 2019 order. 

For instance, Plaintiff asks the Court to instruct her as to “how [to] properly 

plead infringement upon the copyrightable and trade secret aspects of [her] works,”

and inquired whether she might be “permitted to add each Board member of the 

Board of Directors of Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. . . . rather than naming the Board 

of SRNE as an entity.” (ECF No. 80-1, at 11). She poses hypotheticals asking 

whether “claims based on the following syntax [would] be sufficient to overcome a 

dispositive motion brought under FRCP 12.” (Id.) And she seeks advice on 

whether and what language she should use in order to replead the Fifth Amendment 

takings claims against the private defendants in this case, which claim the Court 

previously denied with prejudice. (Id. at 16.)

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 85 Filed 04/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
- 2 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

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 argues that because she is entitled to guidance on the 

aforementioned because of her status as a pro se litigant. Defendants counter that a

party who “proceeds pro se with full knowledge and understanding of the risks 

does so with no greater rights than a litigant represented by a lawyer, and the court 

is under no obligation to become an ‘advocate’ for or to assist and guide the pro se 

layman through the trial thicket.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th Cir. 

2007) (quoting Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1365 n.5 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

The law is clear that “a district court lacks the power to act as a party’s 

lawyer, even for pro se litigants.” Id. The Ninth Circuit has warned courts against 

“inject[ing] itself into the adversary process on behalf of one class of litigant.” 

Jacobsen, 790 F.2d at 1365. Courts, as neutral arbiters, are emphatically not in the

business of giving legal advice, and should decline to explain to litigants how they 

might clear any looming procedural challenge. Id. (“Imposing an obligation to give 

notice of Rule 56’s evidentiary standards would also invite an undesirable, openended participation by the court in the summary judgment process.”) Indeed, 

advising Plaintiffs how to “properly plead” her claims would turn the Court into her 

counsel and “undermine district judges’ roles as impartial decisionmakers.” Pliler 

v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231 (2004). As such, the Court will not be advising Plaintiff 

on how to craft her amended pleadings, because doing so would be improper legal 

advice from the Court. 

With respect to Plaintiff’s two procedural questions—i.e., whether all 

exhibits filed in connection with the previous complaints must be re-filed with the

second amended complaint, and whether a redlined copy must be attached—the 

Court refers Plaintiff to Civil Local Rule 15.1.1 

 

1 That rule provides as follows: 

Amended Pleadings. Every pleading to which an amendment is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by 

court order, must be complete in itself without reference to the superseded pleading.

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 85 Filed 04/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
- 3 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

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’s motion for clarification is DENIED.

II. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration

Plaintiff also seeks reconsideration of four parts of the Court’s order. 

“Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with 

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was 

manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” Sch. 

Dist. No. IJ, Multnomah Cnty v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiff, however, has not identified any new evidence or new law. She simply

reiterates variants of arguments previously made in the lead-up to the February 13, 

2019 Order. And to the extent Plaintiff believes the Court committed clear error, 

the Court disagrees. “Clear error occurs when the ‘reviewing court on the entire 

record is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 

committed.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013)

(quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). The Court 

finds no such error. 

Moreover, Plaintiff’s motion is out of compliance with Civil Rule 7.1(i). 

Under Rule 7.1(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, and her motion for 

reconsideration is additionally faulty for this reason.

Because “[a] motion for reconsideration is not an opportunity to renew 

arguments considered and rejected by the Court, nor . . . an opportunity for a party 

to reargue a motion because it is dissatisfied with the original outcome,” FTC v. 

 

All amended pleadings must contain copies of all exhibits referred to in such amended pleadings. Permission may be 

obtained from the court, if desired, for the removal of any exhibit or exhibits attached to prior pleadings, in order that 

the same may be attached to the amended pleading. Each amended pleading must be designated successively as first 

amended, second amended, etc.

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 85 Filed 04/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
- 4 - CASE NO. 18-CV-01681-GPC-BGS

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

Neovi, Inc., No. 06–CV–1952–JLS JMA, 2009 WL 56130, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 

2009) this Court cannot grant Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration. Plaintiff’s 

request for reconsideration is hereby DENIED. 

III. Plaintiff’s April 10, 2019 Motion

Plaintiff’s April 10, 2019 motion seeks to reschedule the hearing date on the 

Motion to Make Definite and Certain and Reconsideration, and to participate 

remotely. Because the Court has deemed a hearing on that motion unnecessary,

those requests are DENIED as moot. Furthermore, Plaintiff has requested an 

extension of the deadline for the filing of the second amended complaint, currently 

set for April 26, 2019, such that it follows any re-scheduled hearing date. Although 

the Court has denied the request to reschedule the hearing date, the Court will 

extend the deadline for an additional week. As such, this part of Plaintiff’s motion 

is GRANTED, and the new deadline on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint shall 

be May 3, 2019. 

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion To Make

Definite and Certain and Reconsideration. (ECF No. 80.) The motion hearing date 

on this matter, originally set for April 12, 2019, is hereby VACATED. Plaintiff’s 

April 10, 2019 motion is DENIED in part as moot and GRANTED in part. (ECF 

No. 84.) Plaintiff shall file her second amended complaint no later than May 3, 

2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01681-GPC-MSB Document 85 Filed 04/11/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5