Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SHEET METAL WORKERS NATIONAL 10 PENSION FUND, et al., Case No. 20-cv-04737-RS 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 12 v. LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 13 BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, et al., 14 Defendants.

16 This putative class action alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in relation to Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto. On October 19, 2021, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was denied. Dkt. 90. The Court noted, though, that certain theories the Plaintiffs advanced were not viable. Defendants now move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3). Dkt. 93. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Dkt. 95.

21 A party who wishes to move for reconsideration of an interlocutory order must first seek leave to file such a motion under Local Rule 7-9. Under Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), the party must show “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.”

25 Defendants have not satisfied the Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) requirements. Defendants argue that the Complaint does not adequately plead falsity as to statements concerning due diligence and that the Complaint does not adequately plead scienter, repeating the same arguments they made in 1180, 1193 (9th Cir. 2021), Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 575 U.S. 175, 194 (2015), and City of Dearborn Heights v. Align Technology, 856 F.3d 605, 615-16 (9th Cir. 2017), do not establish that Plaintiffs have not pled falsity with particularity as to || Defendants’ statements concerning pre-merger due diligence. These cases, and Defendants’ arguments on this issue, were considered when ruling on the motion to dismiss. Similarly, the argument that Plaintiffs have not pled a legally cognizable motive was considered, and rejected, || when ruling on the motion to dismiss.

8 As Defendants’ arguments were considered when ruling on the motion to dismiss, the motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) is denied.

10 || Motions for reconsideration are designed to bring to the Court’s attention clear instances of missed 11 arguments, not simply to make the very same points but more loudly. Sadly, Defendants’ effort || here falls into the latter category.

|) 1, ISSO ORDERED. a 16 Dated: November 15, 2021 , 18 Chiet United States District Judge 28 ORDER DENYING MOTION FoR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FoR RECONSIDERATION . CASE No. 20-cv-04737-RS