Nanometrics, Incorporated v. Optical Solutions, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-00417
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Optical Solutions v. Nanometrics: Judge Freeman denied Nanometrics’s request to seek reconsideration of an earlier dismissal order.
Nanometrics Incorporated’s request for permission to seek reconsideration was denied; the court stated that it would evaluate Optical Solutions Incorporated’s fourth amended complaint on its merits.
What happened
Optical Solutions Incorporated sued Nanometrics Incorporated. The court had previously granted Nanometrics’s motion to dismiss Optical Solutions’s third amended complaint, and Optical Solutions had since filed a fourth amended complaint.
Nanometrics asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider that earlier dismissal. Nanometrics filed the request nearly two months after the dismissal order and more than a month after the fourth amended complaint was filed.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied Nanometrics’s motion for permission to seek reconsideration, finding that Nanometrics had not acted with reasonable diligence. The court said it would instead consider the fourth amended complaint on its merits.
The detailed version
- Nanometrics, Incorporated v. Optical Solutions, Inc. · No. 5:18-cv-00417
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 17, 2020
Background
The court had previously granted defendant Nanometrics Incorporated’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Optical Solutions Incorporated’s third amended complaint on June 23, 2020. Optical Solutions later filed a fourth amended complaint. Nanometrics then asked for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the earlier dismissal ruling.
Analysis
The court explained that its local rules allow a party to seek permission to file a reconsideration motion before final judgment, but the party must specifically show reasonable diligence. The court also described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy and stated that granting permission is within the court’s discretion.
The court found no reasonable diligence because Nanometrics waited nearly two months after the initial order and was arguing about a version of the complaint that was no longer operative. The court further stated that, when ruling on the third amended complaint, it had necessarily reevaluated its prior rulings in light of that complaint’s allegations and the parties’ cited authority.
Disposition
The court DENIES Nanometrics Incorporated’s motion for leave to file its motion for reconsideration. It stated that it would consider the viability of the fourth amended complaint on its merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.