Tangle Inc. v. Aritzia LP, et al.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 TANGLE INC., Case No. 23-cv-01196-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 Vv. LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 ARITZIA LP, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 103 Defendants. a 12 13 Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of v 14 the Court’s Order dated October 3, 2025, dismissing Aritzia Inc. for lack of personal jurisdiction. © || After reviewing the filing, opposition, and supplementary materials, the Court finds that there is © 16 |] not newly discovered evidence or grounds for reconsideration. Evidence of macromanagement = 17 || does not equate to direction of day-to-day operations or a disregard for separate corporate Zz 18 formalities. See, e.g., Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1075 (9th Cir. 2015). The Court || DENIES Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED. fo) 21 Dated: January 12. 2026 \ | if he f Ig /EFFR/EY S! WHITE 23 | United/Statés Détrict Judge