1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 MARTIFER-SILVERADO FUND I, LLC, CASE NO. 19-cv-04243-YGR

7 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

8 vs. FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

9 ZHONGLI SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Re: Dkt. No. 53

GROUP CO., LTD., ET AL.,

10 Defendants. 11 12 The Court is in receipt of defendants Zhongli Science and Technology Group Co., Ltd. and 13 Suzhou Talesun Solar Technology Co., Ltd.’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration 14 of the Court’s September 11, 2020 order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended 15 complaint (Dkt. No. 45). Having carefully considered the motion, the Court finds that defendants 16 have not satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 7-9(b)(1)-(3). 17 Defendants’ assertion that the Court improperly applied the “purposeful availment” test, 18 instead of the “purposeful direction” test, misconstrues the order. Therein, the Court referred to 19 both tests, and moreover, its analysis focused almost entirely on evidence of defendants’ actions 20 outside the forum state that were directed at the forum, which goes to the showing required under 21 the “purposeful direction” test. See Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 803 22 (9th Cir. 2004). To the extent the Court referred to “purposeful availment,” it did so to reflect the 23 language used and arguments raised in the parties’ own briefing.1 24 In any event, under either test, the result is the same. Defendants repeatedly argue that 25 none of the Court’s findings alone is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. The Court, 26 1 The Ninth Circuit also has recognized that courts “often use the phrase ‘purposeful 27 availment,’ in shorthand fashion, to include both purposeful availment and purposeful direction.” 1 however, did not rely on any single fact or jurisdictional theory in isolation, instead considering 2 whether the evidence, taken as a whole, demonstrated minimum contacts with the forum. In some 3 instances, defendants’ motion misleadingly highlights arguments that the Court merely noted, but 4 || on which it did not rely in reaching a decision. Defendants also repeat many of the same 5 arguments already raised in their prior briefing and considered by the Court. 6 Likewise, defendants’ motion largely rehashes the same arguments previously made as to 7 why they believe Talesun Solar USA Ltd. is a necessary party. None of these arguments warrants 8 || reconsideration. In particular, the Court firmly rejects defendants’ contention that the order 9 “ienore[d] the long list of cases cited” and “overlook[ed] [] controlling authority.” None of the 10 || decisions cited by defendants on this issue is from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, or 11 even another court in this district. Furthermore, simply because an order does not address every 12 || case cited in the parties’ briefing does not mean the relevant cases were not properly considered. g 13 In sum, no material difference in law or fact exists from the time of presentation of the 14 || initial motion, nor did the Court fail to consider the facts or arguments presented therein. To the 3 15 extent defendants now attempt to reframe their prior arguments, the rules do not allow them a 16 second bite of the apple. In any event, the Court does not believe reframing would change the 5 17 outcome. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is denied.

Z 18 This Order terminates Docket Number 53. 19 IT Is SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: October 16, 2020 Lypne Magteff loess

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28