`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`S. Allen, Zirvi has withdrawn his Motion as to Defendants Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Rip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
`
`