throbber
Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 139 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 3836
`CLOSING
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`CHAMBERS OF
`MADELINE COX ARLEO
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`MARTIN LUTHER KING COURTHOUSE
`50 WALNUT ST. ROOM 4066
`NEWARK, NJ 07101
`973-297-4903
`
`
`
`
`
`
`August 6, 2024
`
`VIA ECF
`
`
`LETTER ORDER
`
`Re: Monib Zirvi, M.D., Ph.D. v. Illumina, Inc. et al.
`Civil Action No. 23-1997
`
`
`Dear Litigants:
`
`Before this Court is Plaintiff Monib Zirvi’s (“Zirvi”) Motion for Reconsideration (the
`
`“Motion”) of the Court’s Order, ECF No. 119 (the “April Order”), dismissing his Complaint with
`prejudice. ECF No. 120. Following an in-person settlement conference with the Honorable Jessica
`S. Allen, Zirvi has withdrawn his Motion as to Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Rip
`Finst, Sean Boyle, Illumina, Inc., Latham & Watkins LLP, Roger Chin, and Douglas Lumish (the
`“Settling Defendants”). ECF No. 137. His Motion, therefore, proceeds only as to Defendants
`Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (“Akin”), Matthew A. Pearson (“Pearson”), and Angela
`Verrecchio (“Verrecchio”) (collectively, the “Akin Defendants”). For the reasons stated below,
`Zirvi’s Motion is DENIED.1
`To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, the movant must demonstrate “(1) an
`intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not
`available when the court [issued its order]; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact or
`to prevent manifest injustice.” Max’s Seafood Café v. Quinteros, 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999).
`Reconsideration “is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted.” Walsh v. Walsh, No. 16-
`4242, 2017 WL 3671306, at *1 (D.N.J. Aug. 25, 2017).
`In its April Order, this Court dismissed Zirvi’s Complaint with prejudice finding that all
`four of his claims for inventorship, legal malpractice, fraud, and civil conspiracy were barred by
`claim preclusion. He otherwise failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See
`generally April Order. His claims in this Action are a repackaging of those set out in his 2018
`Southern District of New York litigation where his claims were dismissed as time-barred and for
`failure to state a claim. Id. As part of his claims in both cases, Zirvi alleges that biotechnology
`companies colluded during a prior settlement in a Delaware litigation to deprive Zirvi of his
`intellectual property rights and trade secrets. Id. In the instant Motion, Zirvi now states that the
`Court “overlooked” an alleged February 2019 second settlement agreement from the prior
`
`1 The Court discussed the background of this Action in its April Order and accordingly only discusses the facts
`necessary to resolve the instant Motion.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-01997-MCA-JSA Document 139 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 3837
`CLOSING
`
`Delaware litigation, which arose after he filed his SDNY action, and therefore res judicata cannot
`apply. See generally Mot. Accordingly, Zirvi requests that the Court reverse its April Order
`dismissing his Complaint with prejudice.
`Zirvi’s Motion fails for several reasons. First, the second settlement does not appear in
`Zirvi’s Complaint and thus was not “overlooked” by this Court. See generally Compl., ECF No. 1.
`Second, after receiving the royalty payment, Zirvi filed a Second Amended Complaint in the
`SDNY action and thus his claim arose prior to the judgment in the SDNY case. Third, Zirvi’s
`claims for malpractice, fraud, and civil conspiracy were not only dismissed under a res judicata
`theory but also for failure to state a claim under the 12(b)(6) standard. See April Order at 8–9. As
`Plaintiff fails to state any new issues of fact and has not otherwise met the standard for
`reconsideration, his Motion must be denied.
`
`For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 120, as to the Akin Defendants
`is DENIED and the case is CLOSED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` SO ORDERED.
`s/ Madeline Cox Arleo__________
`MADELINE COX ARLEO
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket