Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION NICKY LAATZ, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04844-BLF 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 ZAZZLE, INC., et al., [Re: ECF No. 433] 11 Defendants.

13 On June 13, 2025, Plaintiff Nicky Laatz (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 433 (“Mot.”). For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration.

17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed prior to the entry of a final judgment in the case. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). “The moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” and one of the following circumstances: (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which 23 reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time 24 of the interlocutory order; or 25 (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or 27 (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

1 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Whether to grant leave to file under Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court’s sound discretion. See United States v. Martin, 226 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000).

3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order for three reasons. First, Plaintiff seeks a reconsideration of the application of the separate accrual rule to her copyright claim. Mot. at 3-6.

6 Plaintiff argues that Defendants have failed to present evidence that all copying of the BE Software occurred in 2017 and that there is evidence showing Zazzle created and distributed derivative works of the BE Software. Mot. at 4-6. Second, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s Order on Plaintiff’s fraud claims based on Zazzle’s purchase of a license to “Beyond the Mountains” font. Id. at 6-9. Third, Plaintiff argues that her asserted copyrights are valid as “font data.” Mot. at 9-12.

11 The Court finds that there is no basis for reconsideration under the “manifest failure” criteria set by the Local Rules of this district, i.e., that the Court failed to “consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3). On the first issue, the Court considered Plaintiff’s evidence on the use of the BE Software on Zazzle’s servers to generate the BE Font design and found that Plaintiff’s evidence “at best shows a continuation of Zazzle’s alleged infringement in 2017.” ECF 414 at 19. On the second issue, the Court considered Defendants’ purchase of the license for the “Beyond the Mountains” font and found that the evidence does not create a dispute of fact on Plaintiff’s fraud claims. See ECF 414 at 22, 24, 29. On the third issue, as the Court explained in its summary judgment order, Plaintiff did not present in her Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment any argument as to how her copyrights are copyrightable as font data. See ECF 414 at 35-37; ECF 342, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, at 18-19. Because Plaintiff has pointed to no “material facts or dispositive legal arguments” that the Court manifestly failed to consider—or any other basis for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9(b)—the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. See Argenal v. Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co., No. C 13-01947, 2014 WL 12644227, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2014) (“Plaintiff is of course entitled to disagree with the Court’s conclusions. But such disagreement does not render the Court’s analysis a manifest failure, nor I. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

Dated: June 16, 2025 7 ETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

= 17 Z 18