Liu v. TNC US Holdings
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-07313
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Liu v. TNC US Holdings, Judge White denied Liu leave to seek reconsideration because he showed no qualifying new law, facts, or overlooked arguments.
The ruling directly affected Frank Liu’s attempt to obtain permission to seek reconsideration. It also benefited TNC US Holdings by leaving Liu without permission to file that reconsideration motion.
What happened
In Liu v. TNC US Holdings, the court had previously dismissed Liu’s case because it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant and entered judgment for the defendant. Liu then asked for permission to file a reconsideration motion.
The court said Liu had not identified a material change in the facts or law, new facts or a change in law after the earlier order, or important facts or legal arguments that the court had overlooked. Court rules also prohibited him from simply repeating arguments he had already made.
Judge Jeffrey White denied Liu’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order did not grant permission to file that motion.
The detailed version
- Liu v. TNC US Holdings · No. 4:21-cv-07313
- Jeffrey White
- Oct. 5, 2022
Background
On September 23, 2022, the court granted TNC US Holdings’ motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and entered judgment in favor of the defendant. On September 25, 2022, Frank Liu filed a notice seeking permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider that earlier order.
Legal Standard
Under Northern District of California Local Rule 7-9(b), a party may seek reconsideration only by showing one of three circumstances: a material difference in the facts or law previously presented; new material facts or a change in law after the earlier order; or a significant failure by the court to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments previously presented. Local Rule 7-9(c) also bars a party from rearguing written or oral arguments already made to the court.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that Liu had not raised a material difference in fact or law from what had previously been presented. It also found that he had not shown new facts, a change in law after the earlier order, or that the court had failed to consider important facts or decisive legal arguments.
Disposition
Judge Jeffrey White denied Liu’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order addressed whether Liu could seek reconsideration; it did not revisit the merits of the earlier personal-jurisdiction dismissal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.