Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06475/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06475-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

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

APOTEX INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06475-JCS 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 58

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 31, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss on the basis that 

Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) failed to join a necessary party. Docket No. 48. Apotex brings a Motion 

for Leave to File Rule 60(b)(1) Motion for Reconsideration (“Motion”) under Civil Local Rule 7-

9. Docket No. 58. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED.1

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standards

1. Civil Local Rule 7-9

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), “[b]efore the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the 

claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before 

a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any 

interlocutory order on any ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9 (b).” A party seeking leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration must show “reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” and also 

demonstrate that at least one of the following requirements is met:

 

1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(c).

Case 3:18-cv-06475-JCS Document 65 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 3
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

Northern District of California

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law 

exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the 

interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must 

show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for 

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory 

order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the 

time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Rule 7-9 further provides that “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of 

or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Civ. 

L.R. 7-9(c). 

2. Rule 60(b)

Rule 60(b) allows the court to grant relief “from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” 

and sets forth specific grounds for relief at subparts (1) through (5), none of which applies to this 

case. Subpart (b)(6) is a “so-called catch-all provision” that allows a court to set aside an order or 

judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th 

Cir. 2008); Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). That provision “is to be ‘used sparingly as an equitable 

remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances 

prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.’” Id.

(quoting Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006)).

“Motions for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) are 

committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.” Blair v. Shanahan, 38 F.3d 1514, 1518 (9th 

Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

B. Discussion

The Court has reviewed the Motion and finds that it merely reargues the points made in 

opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and therefore does not satisfy the requirement of Civil Local 

Rule 7-9(c) that a party seeking reconsideration may not repeat arguments already made in its 

opposition brief. Nor has Apotex demonstrated any manifest failure to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3). The fact that the Court did not 

Case 3:18-cv-06475-JCS Document 65 Filed 06/07/19 Page 2 of 3
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

Northern District of California

specifically discuss three cases cited by Apotex in its opposition brief, see Motion at 3, does not 

demonstrate a failure to consider dispositive legal arguments. Rather, the reasoning set forth by 

the Court in its order granting the Motion to Dismiss makes clear that the Court did not (and does 

not) find those cases to be dispositive. The Court is not required to discuss every case that a party 

cites in support of its position. Therefore, Apotex has not satisfied the requirements of Civil Local 

Rule 7-9 for bringing a motion for reconsideration.

Likewise, the Court concludes that Apotex has not demonstrated that it is entitled to relief 

under Rule 60(b). Relief under that rule is warranted only under extraordinary circumstances and 

is not warranted when a request for reconsideration is based on arguments that have already been 

raised or could have been raised in opposition to the underlying motion, as is the case here. 

Further, the Court rejects Apotex’s argument that the Court has committed clear error for the same 

reasons it rejected the virtually identical arguments raised by Apotex in opposition to the motion 

to dismiss. 

III. CONCLUSION

The Motion is DENIED. The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants 

and close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2019

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06475-JCS Document 65 Filed 06/07/19 Page 3 of 3