United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ATM SHAFIQUL KHALID, an individual and on behalf of similarly situated, XENCARE SOFTWARE, INC., Plaintiff,
MICROSOFT CORP., a Washington Corporation, and JOHN DOE n, Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND PARTIALLY GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff ATM
Shafiqul Khalid's Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. #27.
On September 4, 2019, this Court granted Defendant Microsoft
Corporation (“Microsoft”)'s Motion to
Dismiss, which dismissed Plaintiff's claims with leave to
file an amended complaint. Dkt. #20. On October 2, 2019,
Plaintiff filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which was
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on October 25, 2019. Dkt.
#23. Plaintiff now moves this Court to reconsider its order
and requests certification for interlocutory appeal. Dkt.
#27. The Court has determined that response briefing from
Microsoft is unnecessary. See Local Rules W.D. Wash.
background of this case is not necessary given this
Court's previous order on Plaintiff's claims against
Microsoft. Dkt. #20. This action arises out of
Plaintiff's dispute with his former employer, Microsoft,
regarding an employment agreement he signed when he accepted
a position as Senior Program Manager in Microsoft's Bing
division (“the Employee Agreement”). The Employee
Agreement assigned certain intellectual property rights to
Microsoft for inventions Plaintiff developed during his
employment at Microsoft starting January 2012 until his
termination in February 2015. Dkt. #7 at ¶¶ 17, 21.
Plaintiff claims that he provided Microsoft with an invention
exclusion list (the “Exclusion List”) denoting
nine patentable items that should have been excluded from the
Employee Agreement. Id. at ¶¶ 13, 16, 18.
January 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed this action against
Microsoft alleging eleven claims. Dkt. #1. The Court
dismissed six of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice,
including: forced labor under the Thirteenth Amendment (Count
4), a RICO claim for forced labor (Count 5), civil rights
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985 (Counts 6,
12) fraud (Count 8), and a claim for declaratory relief for a
Fourteenth Amendment violation (Count 10). Dkt. #20 at 22.
The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended
complaint for his Sherman Act claims (Counts 1 and 2), his
RICO claim for extortion (Count 3), and claims for
declaratory relief for violation of RCW 49.44.140 and
inequitable conduct (Counts 9 and 11).
filed an earlier motion for reconsideration on October 28,
2019 requesting the Court to reconsider its order dismissing
his claims. Dkt. #24. The instant motion is nearly identical
to Plaintiff's original motion but adds a request for
certification for interlocutory appeal. See Dkt. #27
at 2. Plaintiff clarifies that the November 18, 2019 motion,
Dkt. #27, “replaces the premature earlier motion”
filed on October 28. Id. Because the filings are
almost indistinguishable, the Court will limit its
consideration to the instant motion and hereby STRIKES
Plaintiff's first motion for reconsideration, Dkt. #24,
Plaintiff's Leave to Amend
initial matter, the Court finds it necessary to clarify for
Plaintiff the scope of this Order. This Order only
reconsiders the Court's previous decision to dismiss
certain claims as they were presented in Plaintiff's
first amended complaint, Dkt. #7, and considers his request
for certification for interlocutory appeal. It does not
examine new allegations presented for the first time in
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, including
Plaintiff's “Proposed Second Amended
Complaint” filed as an exhibit. See Dkt.
#27-1. The Court has already granted Plaintiff leave to amend
his complaint with respect to Counts 1-3, 9 and 11.
See Dkt. #20 at 22. To the extent that Plaintiff
wishes to allege new facts related to those claims, he should
include them in a Second Amended Complaint filed as its own
Plaintiff's Untimely Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiff styles the motion as one to alter or amend judgment
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), no judgment was entered as a
result of the Court's previous order. See Dkt.
#20. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is properly treated
as one for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash.
for reconsideration “shall be filed within fourteen
days after the order to which it relates is filed.” LCR
7(h). Here, the Court issued its order granting
Microsoft's motion to dismiss on September 4, 2019. Dkt.
#20. The deadline to file a motion for reconsideration was
therefore no later than September 18, 2019. This deadline
elapsed before Plaintiff filed his appeal to the Ninth
Circuit on October 2, 2019. Because Plaintiff did not file
either of his motions for reconsideration until October 28,
2019 and November 18, 2019, respectively, both motions are
untimely. See Dkts. #24, #27. For this reason alone,
denial of Plaintiff's motion is appropriate. Even if the
Court affords pro se Plaintiff “the benefit of any
doubt” and considers the merits of his motion, see
Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1158 (9th Cir. 2008),
this district's local rules limit motions for
reconsideration to six pages. See Local Rules W.D.
Wash. LCR 7(e)(1). For this reason, the Court's review is
properly limited to the first six pages of Plaintiff's
Motion. See Dkt. #27 at 2-7.