Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03009/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03009-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration is not currently set for hearing and has been

recast by virtue of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion to strike as a motion to alter

or amend judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re:

SALESFORCE.COM 

SECURITIES LITIGATION

 /

No. C 04-03009 JSW

ORDER RE JURISDICTION

DENYING PENDING MOTIONS

Now before the Court is the motion filed by Defendants salesforce.com, inc. (the

“Company”), Marc R. Benioff and Steve Cakebread (collectively, “Defendants”) to strike

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.1 The Court finds Defendants’

motion appropriate for decision without oral argument and hereby VACATES the hearing set

for March 3, 2006. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). 

Simultaneous with their filing a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

with this Court, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of this Court’s Order dated December 22,

2005 dismissing all claims with prejudice to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. By filing their

notice of appeal, Plaintiffs at once conceded that the order upon which they were seeking

appellate review was a final, appealable order, and also divested this Court of jurisdiction to

hear Plaintiffs’ pending motion.

Case 3:04-cv-03009-JSW Document 102 Filed 03/01/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

In the interim, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, faced with Plaintiffs’ motion to stay

the appellate proceedings filed concurrently with their notice of appeal, issued an order dated

February 9, 2006 indicating that this Court no longer has jurisdiction to consider the pending

motion to review its own order of dismissal. (See Second Supplemental Declaration of

Reginald S. Thompson, Ex. A.) 

Finding that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the pending motions before it, the Court

HEREBY DENIES Defendants’ motion to strike and Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration

(recast as a motion to alter or amend the judgment).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03009-JSW Document 102 Filed 03/01/06 Page 2 of 2