McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings, LLC v. Mathrani
Docket: 16cv8530
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois; March 4, 2018; Federal District Court
On December 12, 2017, the District Court denied iBestBargains, LLC's motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. iBestBargains subsequently sought reconsideration of this order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and requested certification for an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. The Court found that iBestBargains' arguments were previously considered and rejected, leading to the denial of both motions.
The case involves major textbook publishing companies suing multiple parties, including iBestBargains, for copyright and trademark infringement related to the sale of counterfeit textbooks. iBestBargains was accused of purchasing and reselling these counterfeit textbooks from foreign distributors.
Regarding the motion for reconsideration, the Court determined that Rule 59(e) was inapplicable because the December 12 Order is an interlocutory order and not a final judgment. Additionally, iBestBargains' motion was deemed untimely under Local Civil Rule 6.3, which requires motions for reconsideration to be filed within fourteen days of the original order. iBestBargains filed its motion 27 days after the December 12 Order, leading to its denial based on untimeliness, as supported by precedents in the Circuit.
A motion for reconsideration by iBestBargains will be denied because it does not meet the strict criteria under Local Civil Rule 6.3, which requires the moving party to demonstrate that the court overlooked controlling decisions or data that could alter the original conclusion. The rule prohibits the introduction of new arguments or claims that were not presented in the initial motion to ensure finality in judicial decisions. iBestBargains argues that the court failed to consider an affidavit from Plaintiffs that supposedly states iBestBargains did not distribute counterfeit textbooks, but this argument was already considered during the motion to dismiss. The court found that the Complaint provided sufficient notice of the claims against iBestBargains, despite its objection that the allegations concerning personal jurisdiction failed due to the lumping together of defendants. This personal jurisdiction argument was also previously raised and rejected by the court. Ultimately, the court retains discretion over the reconsideration motion, which was not warranted in this instance.
The December 12 Order established the standards for personal jurisdiction in cases where jurisdictional discovery has been granted but no evidentiary hearing has occurred. The plaintiff must make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction through pleadings, affidavits, and supporting materials, which are interpreted in the plaintiff's favor despite any opposing evidence. The Order determined that Plaintiffs met this burden. iBestBargains' motion for reconsideration merely expressed disagreement with the court's interpretation and application of legal standards, without identifying overlooked legal precedents or factual issues. Although iBestBargains referenced an affidavit claiming no counterfeit book sales, the court found this did not negate the prima facie showing of jurisdiction.
Regarding the motion to certify an interlocutory appeal, such appeals are generally disfavored and allowed only under "exceptional circumstances." Certification requires a controlling question of law with substantial grounds for differing opinion, and that an immediate appeal would materially advance the case's resolution. Even if these criteria are met, the court has discretion to deny certification. The proposed appeal by iBestBargains regarding unauthorized distribution claims does not present a pure legal question but instead requires a review of the record, which is not suitable for interlocutory appeal.
Rulings on the sufficiency of pleadings are generally not eligible for interlocutory appeal, and iBestBargains' arguments lack merit. The company claims that affidavits from its managing member and from the Plaintiffs confirm it did not sell counterfeit books, which contradicts the allegations in the Complaint. However, this misunderstanding fails to recognize that the Complaint does allege sales of counterfeit books and presents examples, making this issue appropriate for resolution at summary judgment or trial, not for interlocutory appeal.
iBestBargains later shifts its focus to questioning whether the Plaintiffs' Complaint meets the requirements for asserting personal jurisdiction under Rule 8. This question, however, also does not qualify for interlocutory appeal as it merely challenges the sufficiency of the Complaint regarding personal jurisdiction, similar to prior case law where such matters were deemed unsuitable for appeal. Additionally, iBestBargains’ challenge to the Court's findings on the prima facie showing of jurisdiction does not constitute a legal question but rather a factual dispute.
The Court finds that iBestBargains fails to identify a controlling question of law or demonstrate the existence of substantial grounds for differing opinions, which are necessary for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Consequently, the motions for reconsideration and interlocutory appeal are denied, and the request for a stay of proceedings is rendered moot. The Clerk of Court is instructed to terminate the pending motions. iBestBargains' motion for certification acknowledges that the December 12 Order is not immediately appealable as of right.
Several courts in this Circuit have interpreted late motions for reconsideration under Rule 59(e) or Local Civil Rule 6.3 as motions under Rule 60(b). However, Rule 60(b) is applicable only to the reconsideration of final judgments, and not to interlocutory orders, as established in relevant case law. Since the December 12 Order is an interlocutory order, Rule 60(b) does not apply. Furthermore, iBestBargains' motion for certification merely reiterates an argument previously rejected by the Court regarding the plaintiffs' failure to specify the works distributed, which challenges the sufficiency of the Complaint and is inappropriate for interlocutory appeal. The Court has already addressed and dismissed this argument in the December 12 Order, emphasizing that interlocutory appeals are not meant to provide a second opportunity to argue issues already decided.
