“Defendant ZA Central Registry’s (“ZACR”) motion to reconsider and vacate the Court’s preliminary injunction ruling is an attempt at a second bite at the apple “ –DCA Trust
“Because ZACR’s motion is an attempt to re-litigate the same issues addressed in the preliminary injunction papers, and not the result of changed circumstances, the motion is a motion for reconsideration, not a motion to vacate.”
Therefore, ZACR is required to show but fails to make the following showing, says DCA
- that the Court failed to consider some material fact,
- that there are newly discovered material facts, or that
- the Court committed clear error
Instead, ZACR argues as follows:
“that the Court made a single factual error in its order with regard to DCA’s initial evaluation; that DCA did not have sufficient endorsements;that DCA’s application received 17 early warnings; that the Court based its ruling on irreparable harm on an incorrect assertion; and that ZACR’s submission on the balance of harms, which includes a declaration from its CEO on alleged harm to Africa and ZACR, should change the Court’s analysis”.
ZACR was also sitting on sidelines relying on ICANN to raise the issues, says DCA
“Although ZACR did not appear in the case until April 26, 2016, it had DCA’s motion for preliminary injunction by March 22, 2016, at the latest. DCA’s counsel also emailed ZACR’s CEO with the preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order papers on March 08, 2016. ZACR had counsel at least as of April 1st, 2016. Nevertheless, ZACR apparently chose to sit on the sidelines, rely on ICANN, and wait until after the Court issued its order on April 12, 2016 to raise issues, all but one of which it could have raised before the ruling.”
The Opposition documents filed by DCA can be found here.