Case 3:06-cv-01905-JSW
Document 161
Filed 09/05/2007
Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
ROBERT JACOBSEN,
9
Plaintiff,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 06-01905 JSW
v.
MATTHEW KATZER and KAMIND
ASSOCIATES, INC.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
12
Defendants.
13
/
14
15
Now before the Court is the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration filed by
16
Plaintiff Robert Jacobsen. Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Court order issued on
17
August 17, 2007 granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying Plaintiff’s motion for
18
preliminary injunction. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s papers and considered the
19
relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s motion
20
for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
21
A motion for reconsideration may be made on one of three grounds: (1) a material
22
difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court, which, in the
23
exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for reconsideration did not know at the time
24
of the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest
25
failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before
26
entry of the order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). In addition, the moving party may not reargue any
27
written or oral argument previously asserted to the Court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c).
28
Case 3:06-cv-01905-JSW
1
Page 2 of 2
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration for the Court to consider dispositive legal arguments
that it failed to consider initially with regard to the motion for preliminary injunction and a
3
material change in fact with regard to the cybersquatting claim. The Court considered the
4
arguments now raised when considering Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and found
5
them unpersuasive. It finds them similarly unpersuasive in the context of the motion to
6
reconsider. Plaintiff may not move for reconsideration on the basis of any written or oral
7
argument previously asserted to the Court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). In addition, Plaintiff’s contention
8
that the Court misunderstood his argument at the hearing does not constitute a changed material
9
fact and does not alter the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
11
For the Northern District of California
Filed 09/05/2007
2
10
United States District Court
Document 161
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is
DENIED.
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15
Dated: September 5, 2007
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2