based upon mistake and inadvertence regarding their purported failure to file an objection under Rule 9033(b). Kingsvision Pay–Per–View Ltd. v. Lake Alice Bar, 168 F.3d 347, 350 (9th Cir. 1999) [F.R.Civ.P 60(b)(1) applies to mistake and inadvertence by the Court.] C. If the Elkwood Parties’ Prior Objections to the Proposed Judgment and the Proposed Findings and Conclusions Are Not Deemed to Have Satisfied Rule 9033(b), the Elkwood Parties Request Relief from the December 10, 2019 Rulings To extent that it is now determined that Rule 9033(b) was not previously satisfied by the Elkwood Parties’ opposition to the proposed Judgment and FF&CL, even though they were worded exactly as recommended to this Court, the Elkwood Parties request relief from the December 10 Rulings based upon the “excusable neglect” of their counsel under Rule 60(b)(1) and based upon Rule 60(b)(6), which provides for relief based upon “any other reason that justifies relief,” as well as relief under Rule 59(e) on the same grounds. The Elkwood Parties’ opposition to the form of the proposed Judgment and FF&CL certainly appeared to satisfy Rule 9033(b), and the Elkwood Parties’ counsel was working diligently to present the Objection Motion by which the Elkwood Parties intended to seek de novo review before this Court, when the Court entered its December 10 Rulings. / / / / Case 2:19-cv-09915-JFW Document 14 Filed 01/06/20 Page 16 of 26 Page ID #:267 H IL L, F A R R ER & B U R R IL L LL P A LI M IT ED L IA BI LI TY P AR TN ER SH IP AT TO R N EY S AT L AW O N E C AL IF O R N IA P LA ZA , 3 7T H F LO O R 30 0 SO U TH G R AN D A VE N U E LO S AN G EL ES , C AL IF O R N IA 9 00 71 -3 14 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 III.

24 A Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration “is not the proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.”25 Therefore, to succeed on a Rule 59(e) motion, a party must “clearly establish either [1] a manifest error of law or fact or [2] must present newly discovered evidence.”26 As demonstrated below, Plaintiff fails to, and cannot, establish either of these requisite prongs, and, as such, this Honorable Court should deny her Motion for Reconsideration. B. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FAILS TO PUT FORTH ANY REASON WARRANTING THIS COURT’S RECONSIDERATION OF ITS NOVEMBER 13 JUDGMENT. Plaintiff’s entire motion is based on self-serving and, in part, a deficient affidavit and documents and information that she admits were previously available and known to her and that “[she] did not previously submit” or rely upon.27 Plaintiff now belatedly submits this evidence and argues that she had not previously submitted or relied upon same in support of her claims because, she contends, Delta “waived any objections to the timeliness of Ms. Stevenson’s EEOC complaint by appearing, answering, transferring venue and participating in discover

As to Rule 59(e), it does not apply here because that rule addresses “motion[s] to alter or amend a judgment.” See F.R.C.P. 59(e). No judgment has been entered on infringement of the ’150 patent, or on any other issue in the case.

Plaintiffs also move the Court for leave to file the SAC under Rule 15. Plaintiffs, however, did not request leave to amend their Complaint prior to entry of the Court’s Order, and therefore they can revive their claims only by satisfying Rule 59(e). For the reasons stated above, they cannot satisfy that Rule’s standard.

If it does so, it should hold the ’262 Patent claims ineligible. See supra § I.A. If, however, the Court does not reverse the eligibility order, then it must order a new trial on infringement under Rule 59 (or decide that issue for CAS as a matter of law) based on the interpretation of “regulate” applied in the eligibility decision—i.e., that it requires “monitoring” activity, such as “respon[ding] to characteristics of the used washing liquid” (Dkt. 293 at 18-19). B. No substantial evidence proves that the accused system includes an

CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court grant their motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) because Case: 1:04-cv-07423 Document #: 672 Filed: 12/03/13 Page 58 of 60 PageID #:9175 52 Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the verdict. In addition, Defendants request that this Court grant their motion for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 for each of the foregoing reasons and because the cumulative impact of all trial irregularities made the trial unfair to Defendants. Dated: December 3, 2013 John F. Gibbons (Attorney No. 6190493) Tiffany S. Fordyce (Attorney No. 235063) Tanisha R. Reed (Attorney No. 6283173) Special Assistant Corporation Counsel to the City of Chicago, Dept. of Law GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, Illinois 60601 T: (312) 456-8400 F: (312) 456-8435 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Tiffany S. Fordyce Case: 1:04-cv-07423 Document #: 672 Filed: 12/03/13 Page 59 of 60 PageID #:9176 53 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tiffany S. Fordyce, an attorney, hereby certify that, on December 3, 2013, I served the foregoing DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AND MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL on all counsel of record via the Court’s (ECF) electronic filing service.

This amendment precludes any possible finding of “claim splitting” that renders one or both actions duplicative. To the extent that the Court has held, or would hold, that the mere representation of different parties by the same counsel somehow renders one or both actions duplicative, the Court has committed a manifest error of law subject to correction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Case 1:11-cv-01142-ABJ Document 75 Filed 09/10/12 Page 19 of 20 14 Defendants have not cited, and the undersigned are unaware, of any decision from any court in any jurisdiction holding that a later-filed action filed by a “Plaintiff B” can be dismissed as “duplicative” of a substantively similar action filed by a “Plaintiff A” if they are represented by the same counsel.

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC By /s/ J.D. Lowry. STEVEN A. GIBSON Nevada Bar No. 6656 JODI DONETTA LOWRY Nevada Bar No. 7798 City Center West 7201 West Lake Mead Boulevard, Suite 503 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Case 2:11-cv-00304-LRH-CWH Document 51 Filed 04/30/12 Page 15 of 16 -16- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1 of this Court, I certify that I am an employee of Dickinson Wright PLLC and that on this 30th day of April, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing REPLY TO SBR MARKETING, LTD.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT UNDER FED.R.CIV.P. 59(e) with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system: Gary Jay Kaufman, Esq. The Kaufman Law Group 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1010 Los Angeles, California 90067 Chad Bowers, Esq.

(Pl. Mot.) Because Plaintiffs have failed to timely file their motion and have otherwise confirmed the basis for this Court’s dismissal of their claims, Plaintiffs’ motion, to the extent it relies on Rule 59 to reinstate their case, must be denied. B. PLAINTIFFS HAVE NOT DEMONSTRATED A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF.

See Anglin, 2011 WL 2604824 at *1. Abdullah has raised no argument that is sufficient to justify reconsideration of the Court’s Order under Rule 59(e). See id.