Full Tilt Boogie, LLC v. Kep Fortune, LLC
Full Tilt Boogie, LLC v. Kep Fortune, LLC
2021 WL 5562821 (C.D. Cal. 2021)
November 2, 2021
Scott, Karen E., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court denied Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, noting that Defendants had not established any grounds for reconsidering the Court's sanctions order. The Court further noted that Defendants had not adequately explained why KEP's asserted financial difficulties and lack of cash flow was a newly discovered fact. As such, KEP Fortune LLC was ordered to immediately pay $23,962 to Full Tilt Boogie LLC.
Additional Decisions
FULL TILT BOOGIE LLC
v.
KEP FORTUNE LLC, et al.
v.
KEP FORTUNE LLC, et al.
Case No. 2:19-cv-09090 ODW (KESx)
United States District Court, C.D. California
Filed November 02, 2021
Counsel
Ryan Andrew Ellis, Ryan Ellis Law, San Diego, CA, Jennifer Renee Lloyd, Howard and Howard Attorneys PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, Steven Edman Kish, III, Howard and Howard Attorneys PLLC, Beverly Hills, CA, for Full Tilt Boogie, LLC.Ann Anooshian, Mohajerian APC, Al Mohajerian, Mohajerian PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Kep Fortune, LLC, Jeroen Bik, Miray Bik.
Scott, Karen E., United States Magistrate Judge
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): Order DENYING Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 166)
*1 On September 14, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Determination of Fees (Dkt. 97) and ordered Defendant KEP Fortune LLC to pay Plaintiff a sanctions award of $23,962 within 30 days. (Dkt. 160.) On October 1, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration, seeking the ability to pay the sanctions over a ten-month period beginning in February 2022.[1] (Dkt. 166.) In support, Defendants included the declaration of Jeroen Bik, in which he asserted that “KEP has suffered financially over the last year and a half due to the ‘pandemic’ and the resulting economic effects and slowdown in business both in the U.S. and the world.” (Dkt. 166-1 ¶ 2.) On October 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed its opposition brief. (Dkt. 174.) On October 29, 2021, Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion. (Dkt. 176, 178.)
A motion for reconsideration ... may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time the Order was entered, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the Order was entered, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before the Order was entered.
C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18. Further, a motion for reconsideration shall not “in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.” Id.; see Hen v. City of Los Angeles, 244 F. App'x 794, 797 (9th Cir. 2007) (“a motion for reconsideration is not a means to reargue a previous position”); United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 (E.D. Cal. 2001) (“A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to reargue the motion or to present evidence which should have been raised before.”) (citation omitted).
Defendants have not established any grounds for reconsidering the Court's sanctions order. First, the reply repeats arguments made multiple times—and which the Court has explicitly rejected—that no sanctions are warranted. (Dkt. 176 at 4–5.) Second, Defendants do not adequately explain why KEP's asserted financial difficulties and lack of cash flow is a newly discovered fact. Defendants knew as early as June 9, 2021, that Plaintiff could likely recover the costs it incurred in filing and supporting its motion to compel (Dkt. 72) and certainly by July 1, 2021, when the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to compel and directed the parties to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff's reasonable fees and costs. (Dkt. 80.) Further, Defendants were aware by July 7, 2021, that Plaintiff would be seeking over $22,000 in costs and fees. (Dkt. 97-1.) Nevertheless, nowhere in its opposition to Plaintiff's motion for fees (Dkt. 125) did Defendants assert they would be unable to timely pay the sanction. Finally, even if the Court was inclined to entertain Defendants untimely request to postpone payment, Defendants’ declaration in support of their financial situation is woefully inadequate. They do not explain or provide evidentiary support in enough detail for the Court to accept the general assertions of KEP's “dire” financial situation.
*2 Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 166) is DENIED. KEP Fortune LLC shall immediately pay $23,962 to Full Tilt Boogie LLC, as previously ordered.
Footnotes
A motion for reconsideration is not the same as objecting to a magistrate judge's non-dispositive rulings, which the parties may do within 14 days per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).