Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Sergey Firsov filed suit against Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft and other defendants. The court previously granted a motion to dismiss Lufthansa from the case, issuing an order of dismissal on the merits of Firsov's claims under the Montreal Convention. See Dkt. No. 30. Firsov subsequently filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of that dismissal order, as required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) for interlocutory orders. The motion for leave argued two grounds: first, that a change in law had occurred based on amended guidance material from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO); and second, that the court manifestly failed to consider material facts and dispositive legal arguments presented in the complaint, including allegations regarding Lufthansa's refusal to book Firsov on his chosen flight and an unnecessarily long itinerary.
The court evaluated the motion under the stringent standard for reconsideration, which is an "extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources" and should not be granted "absent highly unusual circumstances." Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., 677 F. Supp. 3d 1069, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2023). Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), a party seeking leave must show either: (1) a material difference in fact or law existing at the time of the interlocutory order that the party did not know of despite reasonable diligence; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the order; or (3) a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before the order. The rule also prohibits rearguing previously asserted arguments. Civil L.R. 7-9(c).
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Firsov's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Regarding the alleged change of law under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(2), the court found that Firsov relied on amended ICAO guidance material and electronic bulletins, but acknowledged that the court's dismissal order specifically cited and relied upon the operative Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), Annex 17, Section 4.5.3 (Tenth Edition 2017). The court held that the Convention controls and the amended guidance material does not constitute a change in law that would alter the analysis or conclusion. Therefore, the Rule 7-9(b)(2) argument failed.
Regarding the alleged manifest failure to consider material facts under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), the court determined that none of the allegations cited in the motion for leave were new; all were included in the operative complaint. The court explicitly stated that it did not fail to consider these facts, but rather determined that Firsov's allegations failed as a matter of law under the Montreal Convention. Because the court had considered the facts and found them legally insufficient, there was no manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. The Rule 7-9(b)(3) argument likewise failed. The court therefore denied the motion for leave in its entirety.
Key Takeaways
- Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of highly unusual circumstances under Ninth Circuit and local precedent.
- Amended guidance material from an international organization does not constitute a change in controlling law when the court's ruling was based on the governing treaty convention itself.
- A court's determination that pleaded allegations fail as a matter of law does not equate to a manifest failure to consider those facts under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3).
- Arguments raised in a motion for leave to file for reconsideration may not reargue points previously asserted to the court.
- The Northern District of California's Civil Local Rule 7-9 imposes a two-step gatekeeping process for reconsideration of interlocutory orders.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the high bar for obtaining reconsideration of interlocutory dismissal orders in the Northern District of California. It clarifies that updated guidance documents from international bodies like ICAO do not override or amend the controlling treaty provisions—here, the Chicago Convention and Montreal Convention—upon which a court's legal analysis rests. The decision also underscores that a court's legal conclusion that facts are insufficient to state a claim is distinct from a failure to consider those facts, foreclosing a common attempt to recast legal disagreement as judicial oversight. Practitioners should note the strict enforcement of Civil Local Rule 7-9's requirements and the futility of using reconsideration motions to re-litigate dismissed claims.