Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01985/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01985-15/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT R. CREAGER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MASUO YOSHIMOTO; M.P.

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; and M2M, INC.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-01985 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND

DENYING REQUEST FOR

SANCTIONS

Now before the Court is the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration filed by

Defendant M.P. Technologies, Inc. (“MPT”). MPT requests reconsideration of the Court order

issued on October 7, 2007, denying in part and granting in part Defendants’ motion for

summary judgment (“Order”). Having carefully reviewed MPT’s papers and considered the

relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES MPT’s motion

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

A motion for reconsideration may be made on one of three grounds: (1) a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court, which, in the

exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for reconsideration did not know at the time

of the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest

failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before

entry of the order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). In addition, the moving party may not reargue any

written or oral argument previously asserted to the Court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). 

Case 3:05-cv-01985-JSW Document 118 Filed 11/06/07 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

MPT moves for reconsideration for the Court to consider dispositive legal arguments

that it alleges the Court failed to consider initially with regard to the motion for summary

judgment. The Court considered the arguments now raised when considering MPT’s motion

and found them unpersuasive. It finds them similarly unpersuasive in the context of the motion

to reconsider. MPT may not move for reconsideration on the basis of any written or oral

argument previously asserted to the Court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). 

Accordingly, MPT’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Further, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for sanctions in the amount incurred as a

result of opposing the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration because no response

need be filed opposing a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration unless otherwise

ordered by the Court. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(d). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 5, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-01985-JSW Document 118 Filed 11/06/07 Page 2 of 2