SAN DIEGO — The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has issued an order denying a motion for reconsideration in a case against Old Gringo Inc.
“Defendants’ motion mischaracterizes the Court’s summary judgment order, ignores its analysis, raises new arguments and law not cited in the initial motion, and otherwise does not show that reconsideration is warranted. Thus, the Court denies Defendants’ motion for reconsideration in its entirety,” the court decision stated.
“Fatal to Defendants’ motion is that they raise entirely new arguments absent from their summary judgment motion. As such, Defendants do not seek 'reconsideration,' but rather they request a new ruling on arguments they could have raised earlier but did not. Defendants have therefore waived the arguments and may not raise them now,” Judge Cynthia Bashant wrote.
According to the court documents, Marsha Wright designed boots for Old Gringo from 2005 to 2015. She claims that in or around 2013 she was led to believe she was a partner in the company yet never recieved the ownership interest that was allegedly promised to her.
Summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part by a court earlier in December. However, “within a week’s span, Defendants have moved for reconsideration on 'two discrete issues' which they believe are case-dispositive,” the court decision stated.
“They believe that ‘the Court did not address a crucial argument made by Defendants' that if there was no binding contract by which Wright agreed to provide her services in exchange for the Ownership Interest or an offer of the Ownership Interest requiring Wright’s performance of such services, then Wright cannot establish reliance necessary for these other claims’,” Judge Bashant wrote.
“It is clear that Defendants disagree with the Court’s essential conclusion that even in the absence of a contract regarding the Ownership Interest which required Wright to work for Defendants, Wright has plausibly pleaded and provided evidence of her reliance on Defendants’ alleged promise of the Ownership Interest,” the court decision stated.
“Defendants do not otherwise provide the Court with factual or legal arguments of a strongly persuasive nature. Thus, the Court affirms its denial of summary judgment to Defendants,” Judge Bashant concluded.