Webseed, Inc. et al v. Department of State et al

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
WEBSEED, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-03020-AMO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION & DENYING
MOTION TO ABATE DEADLINES
Re: Dkt. Nos. 202, 203
CANCER STEP OUTSIDE THE BOX,
LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-07399-AMO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION & DENYING
MOTION TO ABATE DEADLINES
Re: Dkt. Nos. 185, 186
Before the Court is an identical motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration in
these two related cases. Plaintiffs request leave to seek reconsideration of the Court’s order
granting several motions to dismiss the amended complaints. See, e.g., Webseed, Dkt. No. 199;
Cancer Step Outside The Box, Dkt. No. 182 (orders granting motions to dismiss). The motions for
leave are ripe for adjudication. See Civil L.R. 7-9(d) (“Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned
Judge, no response need be filed and no hearing will be held concerning a motion for leave to file
a motion for reconsideration.”).
“Reconsideration is an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of
finality and conservation of judicial resources.’ ” Gamevice, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., 677 F. Supp. 3d
1069, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (quoting Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003)).
“As such, it should not be granted ‘absent highly unusual circumstances.’ ” Gamevice, 677 F.
Case 4:25-cv-03020-AMO Document 205 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 3

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
Supp. 3d at 1071 (quoting Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d
873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009)).
A party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory court order in this District must first
seek leave to file such a motion. Civil L.R. 7-9(a). The moving party must specifically 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 of 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). A party seeking reconsideration may not reargue any written or oral argument
previously asserted to the Court. Civil L.R. 7-9(c).
Here, Plaintiffs seek relief on the third potential basis on which a party may request leave
to file a motion for reconsideration – that the Court manifestly failed to consider dispositive legal
arguments presented to it before it granted the motions to dismiss. See Webseed, Dkt. No. 202;
Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Plaintiffs aver that the Court erred in its analysis related to Title 47 U.S.C.
§ 230. Id. at 2-5, 7-8. Plaintiffs additionally contend that the Court erred in its standing and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 analyses. Id. at 6-8. The order granting the motions to dismiss
expressly considered Plaintiffs’ arguments on these issues. See Webseed, Dkt. No. 199 at 8-17
(discussing Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43 (2024), and Plaintiffs’ standing); 23-27 (analyzing
application of Section 230 to bar liability where Plaintiffs seek to hold Platform Defendants liable
for “publishing” activity; considering California v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 186 F.4th 663 (9th Cir.
2026)); 27-28 (applying Rule 8 and granting dismissal of the shotgun pleading with leave to
amend). Plaintiffs’ motions for leave thus reargue both written and oral argument previously
asserted to the Court in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-9(c), even relying on the same cases and
the same contentions. Because Plaintiffs seek relief that does not comport with Civil Local Rule
7-9, the Court DENIES the motions for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Case 4:25-cv-03020-AMO Document 205 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
Plaintiffs additionally move to abate the deadline within which to file further amended
complaints. See Webseed, Dkt. No. 203; Cancer Step Outside The Box, Dkt. No. 186. Plaintiffs’
request for abatement seeks to continue the deadline to amend based on the resolution of the
motions for leave to file motions for reconsideration. Having denied those motions, no abatement
is necessary. The Court therefore DENIES the motion to abate the deadline for Plaintiffs’ further
amended complaints. The deadline for the amended complaints remains October 28, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 9, 2026
ARACELI MARTÍNEZ-OLGUÍN
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-03020-AMO Document 205 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 3