Prime Capital, HR v. Mackenzie

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denies Prime Capital HR’s motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court holds that Plaintiff failed to establish excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and did not satisfy the standards for reconsideration under Rule 59(e).

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was not warranted because Plaintiff possessed the evidence at least twelve days before the ruling and could have presented it to the court or sought leave to do so; Plaintiff did not establish newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in controlling law.
2. Plaintiff was not entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) because it failed to show mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the equitable factors did not support a finding of excusable neglect.
3. The motion was timely under Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(1).

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) based on evidence it had possessed before the court's dismissal order.
2. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) for mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.
3. Whether Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was timely under Civil Local Rule 7.1(i)(1).

Disposition

other