Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-04844
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Laatz v. Zazzle, Judge Freeman denied reconsideration of a mutual-assent finding and ordered a response to defendants’ clarification request.
Zazzle, Inc. and Mohamed Alkhatib were denied permission to seek reconsideration; Nicky Laatz was required to respond to the clarification request.
What happened
In Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., Nicky Laatz sued Zazzle, Inc. and Mohamed Alkhatib. The defendants asked for permission to seek clarification and reconsideration of an earlier order concerning whether the parties agreed to certain contract documents.
The earlier order found that the defendants showed mutual agreement to the License Terms and Service Terms, but it otherwise denied Laatz’s request for partial summary judgment on her claims. The defendants argued that the court had overlooked facts and legal arguments about agreement to the License Terms.
The court denied the defendants’ request for leave to seek reconsideration, finding that they identified no overlooked material facts or decisive legal arguments. Judge Beth Labson Freeman directed Laatz to file a response of no more than three pages to the separate clarification request; the court did not decide that request in this order.
The detailed version
- Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc. · No. 5:22-cv-04844
- Beth Freeman
- Nov. 27, 2023
Background
Defendants Zazzle, Inc. and Mohamed Alkhatib asked for permission to seek clarification and reconsideration of the court’s earlier order on Nicky Laatz’s motion for partial summary judgment. Laatz alleged that four documents formed a contract between the parties. The earlier order found that the defendants demonstrated mutual assent—agreement by the parties—to two of those documents: the License Terms and the Service Terms. The earlier order otherwise denied Laatz’s motion for partial summary judgment on claims for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, promissory fraud, and copyright infringement.
The defendants argued that the court should reconsider its finding concerning the License Terms. They contended that the reasoning and legal authority the court applied to the License FAQ, for which Laatz had not established mutual assent, should also apply to the License Terms. The defendants also requested clarification of language in the earlier order and asked the court to state that they disputed mutual assent to the License Terms.
Legal Standards
Under the district’s local rules, a party seeking permission to file a reconsideration motion before final judgment must show reasonable diligence and one of several specified circumstances. One circumstance is a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments presented before the earlier order. The court also explained that clarification is appropriate when an order contains ambiguity or confusion that can be corrected with further explanation.
Court’s Analysis
The court found no basis for reconsideration under the manifest-failure standard. The documents cited by the defendants were the same documents the court had relied on when distinguishing the License Terms from the License FAQ, including differences in the steps required to reach each document and the documents’ placement and prominence. The court also stated that the earlier order had expressly recognized the defendants’ argument that there were factual disputes about which documents formed the contract and whether the parties mutually assented to the License FAQ and License Terms.
The court concluded that the defendants’ argument was instead that factual and legal issues should have prevented summary judgment on mutual assent to the License Terms. The court stated that this disagreement was not a ground for reconsideration.
The court agreed to consider the defendants’ separate request for clarification and directed Laatz to respond. It did not resolve the clarification request in this order.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the finding that they demonstrated mutual assent to the License Terms. It ordered Laatz to file, within one week, a response of no more than three pages to the clarification request and stated that no reply would be permitted. Judge Beth Labson Freeman signed the order on November 27, 2023.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.