DailyGobble, Inc. v. Amit Jain, et al.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO RECONSIDER ITS FINAL RULING ON ITS OWN MOTION

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Amit Jain

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff DailyGobble, Inc.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiff DailyGobble, Inc., brings this Complaint against Defendants Amit Jain, Alliance Group Ventures, LLC, and Chirag Patil.  Plaintiff alleges Defendant Jain is the CEO of Bridg, Inc., and Plaintiff DailyGobble held a sizeable number of shares in Bridg.  Defendant Jain approached Plaintiff about a potential sale of its shares, and falsely represented that the shares were worth no more than $0.75 each. At the same time, Defendant was negotiating a sale of Bridg in a transaction that would represent a substantial premium from the valuation Jain disclosed to DailyGobble. In reliance on Jain’s representations, Plaintiff DailyGobble sold 851,601 shares of Bridg stock to Alliance Group Ventures, purportedly operated by and for Defendant Patil, at a price of $0.725 per share. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Alliance Group and Patil are connected to Defendant Jain.  Months after Plaintiff sold its shares, Cardlytics, Inc. acquired all of Bridg’s outstanding stock at $9 per share, a 1200% increase in the price Plaintiff received for its shares.  

Defendant Amit Jain now moves for reconsideration of this court’s July 12, 2023, ruling on his Demurrer. Plaintiff opposed.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED, except as stated herein.

Plaintiff to give notice, unless waived.

DISCUSSION:

Motion for Reconsideration

A. Judicial Notice

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Monster, LLC v. Beats Electronics, LLC, 2020 WL 5014610 (2020) is DENIED. The unpublished opinion was not rendered in an appeal related to the present matter (Fink v. Shemtov (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1171, 1173), and this court is otherwise prohibited from relying on unpublished opinions (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a)).

B. Analysis

Defendant Amit Jain seeks reconsideration—under CCP § 1008 and/or the court’s inherent power to reconsider its prior rulings—of the July 12, 2023, Final Ruling on Defendant Amit Jain’s Demurrer. In particular, Defendant seeks clarification or reconsideration with respect to plaintiff’s conversion claim (Third Cause of Action) and claims under Corporations Code §§ 25402 and 25502 (Seventh Cause of Action).

The court may reconsider its prior interim orders to correct its own errors at any time, and it hereby exercises that discretion to do so here at this time. (See Le Francoise v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107-09.)

The July 12 Final Ruling then proceeds to state that Plaintiff had “failed to demonstrate [the possibility of reasonable amendment] at the hearing,” and as such, “no leave to amend will be given.” (Id.) 

Aside from this clarification, Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.  First and foremost, no new facts or subsequent material changes in the law have been presented.  As such, no further relief under CCP § 1008 (b) is warranted.  In essence, this motion for reconsideration is based upon the premise that this Court’s Final Ruling was simply incorrect.  Be that as it may, this Court has read and reconsidered the points made in Defendant’s Memorandum and subsequent Reply, and stands by its 07/12/2023 Ruling, except as corrected herein.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: September 20, 2023 ___________________________________