IntusCare, Inc. v. RTZ Associates, Inc.

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
INTUSCARE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-01132-JST
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: ECF No. 133
Plaintiff IntusCare, Inc. seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order
denying Intus’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 133. Reconsideration is
not “to be used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought.” Gray v. Golden Gate
Nat’l Recreational Area, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1132 (N.D. Cal. 2011). Instead, Intus must show
one of the following:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in
fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before
entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought.
The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence
the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law
at the time of the interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law
occurring after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court
before such interlocutory order.
Civil L.R. 7-9(b).
Intus relies on the emergence of new material facts to support its motion and, in particular,
argues that such facts were contained in Defendant RTZ Associates, Inc.’s damages expert report,
which was not produced to Intus until after the motion for leave to amend had been fully briefed.
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 143 Filed 05/22/26 Page 1 of 2

2
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
However, that report was produced on April 23, 2026, one week prior to the Court’s order. More
significantly, although Intus asserts that the report “seeks damages for Collabrios based on
Collabrios contracts,” ECF No. 133 at 2, and that “there is no question that the contracts on which
RTZ’s damages rest have all been assigned to Collabrios,” id. at 6, it does not cite any evidence
that the report characterizes the contracts as belonging to or having been assigned to Collabrios.
At a hearing held on May 11, 2026, counsel for RTZ indicated that the contracts belonged to RTZ
but were serviced by Collabrios, and counsel for Intus cited no contrary evidence. Additionally,
counsel for Intus conceded both that the expert report was silent on the question of whether
Collabrios was the entity entitled to the damages sought and that the report did not add any
additional facts regarding the change in corporate status from RTZ to Collabrios. The Court
therefore does not find that the report presented any new material facts.
Intus also argues that the Court mischaracterized Intus as taking the view that RTZ “ceased
to exist after Collabrios came into existence in October 2024.” ECF No. 123 at 2. Instead, Intus
asserts its position “was that RTZ became Collabrios as a result of the acquisition,” and that
“Collabrios was already a party to the case as a result of acquiring RTZ.” Id. at 7–8. But Intus
cites no authority for the proposition that the acquisition caused Collabrios to be automatically
added or substituted as a party—and Intus’s seeking leave to amend to add Collabrios as a party
belies any such conclusion. Regardless of how Intus’s position is characterized, it does not alter
the Court’s conclusion that Intus was not diligent in seeking leave to amend. ECF No. 123 at 2–3.
For the above reasons, Intus’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is
denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 22, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 143 Filed 05/22/26 Page 2 of 2