`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`MONIB ZIRVI, M.D., Ph. D.
`
`Civil Action No.
`2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ILLUMINA, INC., THERMO FISHER
`SCIENTIFIC, AKIN GUMP
`STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP,
`LATHAM & WATKINS, RIP FINST,
`SEAN BOYLE, MATTHEW A.
`PEARSON, ANGELA
`VERRECCHIO, ROGER CHIN, and
`DOUGLAS LUMISH,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
`PURSUANT TO LOCAL CIVIL RULE 7.1(i)
`
`
`Motion is hereby made for Reconsideration of the Court’s April 26, 2024, Order
`
`ECF No. 119 pursuant to New Jersey District Local Civil Rule 7.1(i), which states:
`
`(i) Motions for Reconsideration Unless otherwise provided by statute or rule
`(such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, 52 and 59), a motion for reconsideration shall be
`served and filed within 14 days after the entry of the order or judgment on the
`original motion by the Judge. A brief setting forth concisely the matter or
`controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge has overlooked shall
`be filed with the Notice of Motion.
`
`Local Rules - Updated 5/02/2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 120 Filed 05/10/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 3681
`
`Rule 7.1(i) requires a party seeking reconsideration to file a brief “setting forth
`
`concisely the matter or controlling decisions which the party believes the Judge or
`
`Magistrate Judge has overlooked.” L. Civ. R. 7.1(i).
`
`Plaintiff is filing the required Brief contemporaneously herewith pursuant to
`
`Rule 7.1(i). Plaintiff believes that the Court’s Order overlooks evidence in the record
`
`that established claims exist regarding acts of the Defendants after the dismissal of the
`
`case in the Southern District of New York (hereafter, “New York Litigation”).
`
`Specifically, after the New York Litigation was filed1, the Defendants acted in concert
`
`with one another to settle claims contained in a litigation involving a patent dispute
`
`with Cornell where Plaintiff, Monib Zirvi, M.D., Ph. D. was an inventor entitled to
`
`royalties, and told his interest was being protected during that litigation.2 Ultimately,
`
`Plaintiff alleges herein that his interest was not protected during that litigation and
`
`because of the Defendants acting in concert, he ended up receiving far less in royalties
`
`than he was legally entitled to collect. This damage occurred long after the filing of the
`
`New York Litigation and was not a part of the New York Litigation.3 The damage was
`
`part of an Arbitration ordered by the Court in the Delaware litigation.
`
`
`1 The New York Litigation was filed August 3, 2018.
`2 See, ECF No. 107, Mathew Person Emails, page 192 and 193. See, also, Exhibit 1
`hereto, Valerie Cross Dorn email dated Feb 21, 2017, stating, “As an inventor (who
`also was a Cornell employee at the time period in which the invention was made, and
`who assigned his interest in the invention to Cornell) you are entitled to representation
`by the plaintiffs’ lawyer as your interests in the invention are aligned with the plaintiffs’
`interests.”
`3 New York Litigation filed August 3, 2018, Royalty Check received February 2019.
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 120 Filed 05/10/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 3682
`
`Prior to bringing the claim, Plaintiff presented all material facts known to him to
`
`a third-party attorney experienced in litigating patent matters. The third-party counsel
`
`provided an affidavit of merit4 in compliance with New Jersey state law that supported
`
`Plaintiff’s clam for malpractice brought in this case.
`
`For the reasons stated herein and the arguments contained in the Brief filed
`
`herewith, Plaintiff files this Motion for reconsideration.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests, for the reasons contained in the
`
`Brief filed contemporaneously herewith, the Court Reconsider and reverse the Court’s
`
`Order of April 19, 2024, dismissing the Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, or in the
`
`alternative, enter an order granting Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`LORIUM LAW
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`101 NE 3rd Ave, Ste 1800
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
`Telephone: (954) 462-8000
`Facsimile: (954) 462-4300
`
`By: /s/ Joseph D. Garrity
`JOSEPH D. GARRITY, ESQ.
`Florida Bar No. 87531
`jgarrity@loriumlaw.com
`GLTService@loriumlaw.com
`By: /s/ Jennifer L. Gordon
`Illinois Bar No. 6298582
`jgordon@loriumlaw.com
`
`
`
`4 See, ECF 1-14, Affidavit of merit.
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 120 Filed 05/10/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 3683
`
`EISENBERG, GOLD & AGRAWAL, P.C.
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`1040 Kings Hwy North, Ste 200
`Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
`Telephone: (856) 330-6200
`Facsimile: (856) 330-6207
`aagrawal@egalawfirm.com
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
