Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04039/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04039-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nextrade Holdings, Inc.
Defendant
Protrade Sports, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

Docket No. 41, Filed February 9, 2006

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PROTRADE SPORTS, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 NEXTRADE HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C05-4039 MJJ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SEEK

RECONSIDERATION AND/OR MOTION

FOR RELIEF UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 60

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Protrade Sports, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Seek

Reconsideration and/or Motion for Relief under Fed. R. Civ. P.60.1

 The motion is opposed by

Defendant Nextrade Sports, Inc. (“Defendant”). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Nextrade is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in

Clearwater Florida. Nextrade develops technology for electronic securities markets. Nextrade

owns the federally registered trademark “Pro-Trade”(the “Pro-trade Mark”). Plaintiff Protrade is a

Delaware corporation which operates an online stock market dealing in virtual shares of professional

athletes in the fantasy-sports industry.

Case 3:05-cv-04039-MJJ Document 48 Filed 03/16/06 Page 1 of 5
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

On October 6, 2005, Plaintiff filed the instant action seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the Pro-Trade mark.

A week after the instant action was filed, Nextrade filed a similar action in the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the “Florida Action”). Like this case, the primary

issue in the Florida action is Protrade’s alleged infringement of Nextrade’s Pro-trade Mark. The

Florida court recently stayed the Florida Action pending the outcome of the instant action.

On November 28, 2005, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction,

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). On February 2, 2006, the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss. Now, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the order based upon new facts, not presented in

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, pertaining to Defendant’s contacts with

California.

Plaintiff acquired some of these additional facts from the deposition testimony of Mr.

Schaible and Mark Yegge in another action. Both of these depositions were conducted in January of

2004 as a result of prior litigation involving the “Protrade” trademark. This prior lawsuit that

produced the Schaible and Yegge depositions involved Nextrade and other parties; Plaintiff was not

a litigant. 

The deposition testimony establishes that in 2004 NexTrade Holdings had wholly owned

subsidiaries, such as “NexTrade, Inc.” Nextrade, Inc. also promoted, licensed, and sold defendant’s

Pro-Trade software, and Nextrade, Inc. entered into business with Dreyfus Brokerage Services, Inc., 

a California Corporation at the time of the transactions.

Additionally, Plaintiff contends that the two depositions and several press releases

demonstrate that Defendant directly conducted business within California through interactions with

Dreyfus Brokerage Services, Inc., and Global Net Financial. Mr. Schaible’s deposition also reveals

that Defendant promoted its Pro-Trade software in a California trade show.

LEGAL STANDARD

In order to establish leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must

specifically show that “at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists

Case 3:05-cv-04039-MJJ Document 48 Filed 03/16/06 Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiff also presents new facts that Plaintiff acquired from former press releases located by using internet searches.

Again, these press releases were available prior to January 11, 2006, and Plaintiff fails to establish that through the exercise

of reasonable diligence these press releases could not have been located. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff again

has failed to meet its burden.

3

from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which

reconsideration is sought.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1). “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.” Id. Alternatively, a moving party could also show “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)(3).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff contends that former depositions and press releases, not available to Plaintiff at the

time of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, establish additional facts material

to the resolution of Defendant’s connection to the forum. Defendant maintains that even with

Plaintiff’s additional facts, Plaintiff still fails to establish Defendant’s personal jurisdiction. 

Furthermore, Defendant contends that the Court should not consider these additional facts under

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1) because they were discoverable prior to January 11, 2006, the filing date of

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Plaintiff must establish that the new facts were unknown to the Plaintiff despite the exercise

of reasonable diligence to procure the information. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1). Here, Plaintiff asserts

that the “deposition testimony was unavailable at the time Pro Trade filed its opposition papers.”

(Plaintiff’s Mot. for Reconsideration.) However, Plaintiff does not show how through reasonable

diligence these depositions were unavailable. The depositions of Mr. Schaible and Mark Yegge took

place over two years ago. The burden is on Plaintiff to establish how these depositions could not

have been procured through reasonable diligence before January 11, 2006. Id. The Court sees no

reason why Plaintiff could not have discovered this testimony three weeks earlier when the Court

made its ruling, especially given that the depositions occurred two years ago; Plaintiff has presented

nothing outside of conclusory allegations upon which the Court could conclude otherwise.2

Case 3:05-cv-04039-MJJ Document 48 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Even assuming Plaintiff’s new facts were previously undiscoverable through reasonable

diligence, Plaintiff’s additional facts fall significantly short of demonstrating that Defendant had

general or specific contacts with California sufficient to warrant personal jurisdiction. The

additional information is not enough to establish that defendant had continuous and systematic

contacts with the forum state to justify general jurisdiction, nor do these facts, many more than two

years old, demonstrate enough of a link with Plaintiff’s claim in the instant action to warrant specific

jurisdiction. Therefore, the addition of these new facts would not change the Court’s previous

finding.

Plaintiff also seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9(b)(3),

which requires the moving party to specifically show “[a] manifest failure by the court to consider

material facts which were presented to the court before such interlocutory appeal.” However,

Plaintiff’s argument relies on new facts presented to the Court and not the Court’s failure to consider

facts presented to the Court when it decided its Order on February 2, 2006. 

Lastly, Plaintiff contends that the Court should grant relief from its February 2, 2006 Order

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) permits the court to relieve a party

from a final order of judgement on grounds of (1) mistake...or excusable neglect;...or (6) any other

reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Such motions are committed to the

discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking Co., 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C. Cir.

1987)(citing cases). To succeed on a motion to reconsider, a party “must set forth facts or law of a

strongly convincing nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision.” Great Hawaiian Fin.

Corp. v. Aiu, 116 F.R.D. 612, 616 (D. Hawaii 1987)(citations omitted), rev’d on other grounds, 863

F.2d 617 (9th Cir. 1988)(per curiam). A court may grant reconsideration of an order based on new

evidence. However, in order for evidence to be considered “new” for the purposes of Rule 60(b), it

must be such that it could not have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence by

the moving party. Id.

As discussed above, Plaintiff has failed to show that the new facts presented could not have

been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, or that the new facts are sufficient to

induce the Court to reverse its prior decision. Therefore, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s request for

Case 3:05-cv-04039-MJJ Document 48 Filed 03/16/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Seek

Reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2006 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04039-MJJ Document 48 Filed 03/16/06 Page 5 of 5