The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 DONALD FRY, et al., Case No. 25-cv-03769-HSG
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND TO
9 v. CORRECT THE RECORD
10 CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 76, 83
11 Defendants.
12
13 Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for
14 reconsideration and their motion to correct the record. Dkt. Nos. 76, 83. The Court DENIES the
15 motions.
16 I. DKT. NO. 76
17 Plaintiffs initially filed this lawsuit on April 30, 2025, seeking to enjoin Capital One’s
18 impending acquisition of Discover. Dkt. Nos. 1, 5. After the Court denied Plaintiffs’ first motion
19 for a preliminary injunction, Dkt. No. 41, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, Dkt. No. 53.
20 The Court dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend. Dkt. No. 72. Instead of
21 filing an amended complaint, Plaintiffs instead moved for leave to file a motion for
22 reconsideration. Dkt. No. 76.
23 Civil Local Rule 7-9 allows a party to seek reconsideration on the following bases:
24 (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
25 before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration
is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of
26 reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did
not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order;
27 or
after the time of such order; or
1
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
2 dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court
before such interlocutory order.
3
4 Civil L.R. 7-9(b). A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for perpetually relitigating the
5 Court’s rulings. See Durkee v. Ford Motor Co., No. C 14-0617 PJH, 2015 WL 1156765, at *2
6 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 2015) (“[M]ere disagreement with a court’s order does not provide a basis
7 for reconsideration.”); GSI Tech., Inc. v. United Memories, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG, 2015
8 WL 4463742, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2015) (“[R]econsideration is not an opportunity to
9 relitigate issues that have already been thoughtfully decided”) (quotation omitted).
10 Plaintiffs fail to make the showing required under the Local Rules. Plaintiffs assert that
11 “in the opinion of the Plaintiffs, the Court overlooked and misapprehended and in some instances
12 misstated material points of fact and law.” Dkt. No. 76 at 2. But Plaintiffs do not explain what
13 was purportedly overlooked or misstated. In their reply brief, Plaintiffs contend that “stating the
14 specific material points of fact and law which the Plaintiffs believe the Court misapprehended or
15 overlooked would defeat the purpose of the requirement that a party must seek approval” before
16 filing a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. No. 81 at 2. This is an unserious argument. Parties
17 seeking leave to file motions for reconsideration regularly attach to their filing a substantive
18 motion containing legal and factual arguments for the Court’s consideration. Plaintiffs have not
19 done so here, nor have they shown any material difference in the law or fact warranting potential
20 reconsideration. If Plaintiffs are of the “opinion” that the Court erred in rejecting their arguments,
21 the place for them to pursue that disagreement is on appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to
22 file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
23 II. DKT. NO. 83
24 Shortly before the Court issued its order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs
25 filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Capital One from acquiring an
26 entirely different company, Brex. Dkt. No. 69. When Plaintiffs filed this motion, the operative
27 complaint contained no allegations about Brex. Accordingly, the Court denied the preliminary
] typographical error, Dkt. No. 78, and the Court issued an amended order, Dkt. No. 82. Plaintiffs
2 || then filed an additional motion to correct the record, asking the Court to amend its order to reflect
3 || that Plaintiffs could not have pled any facts about Brex in their original order because that
4 || acquisition was not contemplated until six months after the filing of the first amended complaint.
5 || See Dkt. No. 83. The Court DENIES that request, because there is nothing to correct. As the
6 || noted in its order on the preliminary injunction, the Court had no authority to issue an injunction
7 || based on claims not pled in the complaint. Dkt. No. 82 at 1. The fact that Plaintiffs could not
8 || have pled such facts in their operative complaint is, plainly, immaterial. Plaintiffs appear to
9 || believe, with no basis in law, that this case is an open-ended placeholder for them to challenge any
10 || action by Capital One that they might disagree with. That belief is wrong. And the deadline to
11 amend the complaint has passed: the Court directed Plaintiffs to file any amended complaint by
12 || April 7, 2026, and they failed to do so.
13 Il. CONCLUSION
14 The Court denies the motions, Dkt. Nos. 76 and 83. Plaintiffs are ORDERED TO SHOW
3 15 CAUSE by May 1, 2026 why this case should not be closed and judgment entered in favor of
16 || Defendant given their failure to file an amended complaint by the April 7 deadline. Or, if
17 || Plaintiffs decline to amend and seek entry of judgment so that they can appeal, they should
Zz 18 confirm as much.
19 IT IS SO ORDERED.
20 || Dated: 4/24/2026
Abstrmd § ML |p
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
22 United States District Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28