Golden
Golden v. Qualcomm, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LARRY GOLDEN, Case No. 22-cv-03283-HSG
Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
v. Re: Dkt. No. 51 QUALCOMM, INC., Defendant.
12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Larry Golden’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order granting Defendant Qualcomm’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 49. Dkt. No. 51.1 Qualcomm filed an opposition (Dkt. No. 53, “Opp.”), and Plaintiff then filed a document styled as “supplemental authority.” (Dkt. No. 54). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b). The Court DENIES the motion. I. LEGAL STANDARD In the Northern District of California, Local Rule 7-9 allows for the filing of motions for reconsideration only with respect to interlocutory orders made in a case prior to the entry of final judgment. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Post-judgment motions for reconsideration are construed as 23 …