Freitag v. CDC, et al

Filing 655

ORDER Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying re #654 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of re #649 June 1, 2012 Order. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/18/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

DEANNA L. FREITAG,

6
7
8

Plaintiff,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

NO. C00-2278 TEH
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF JUNE 1, 2012 ORDER

9
Defendants.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

Plaintiff Deanna Freitag has filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 1,

13 2012 order adopting in part and rejecting in part Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman’s
14 April 26, 2012 report and recommendation concerning Freitag’s most recent motion for
15 attorneys’ fees and costs. Freitag asserts that reconsideration should be granted because the
16 Court violated Civil Local Rule 72-2, which governs motions for relief from nondispositive
17 pretrial orders of a magistrate judge and provides that any such motion shall be deemed
18 denied if no order is issued within fourteen days of the filing of the motion. The rule further
19 provides that the district judge may not grant the motion “without first giving the opposing
20 party an opportunity to respond.” Civ. L.R. 72-2.
21

Freitag’s motion is DENIED for the following independent reasons:

22

1. Freitag failed to seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration as required by Civil

23 Local Rule 7-9(a).
24

2. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(D) provides that a court “may refer a

25 motion for attorney’s fees to a magistrate judge under Rule 72(b) as if it were a dispositive
26 pretrial matter” (emphasis added). Thus, this matter does not concern a nondispositive
27 pretrial order, and Civil Local Rule 72-2 does not apply. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
28 72(b)(2) governs objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations on a

1 dispositive pretrial matter. The rule provides fourteen days for a party to respond to another
2 party’s objections.1 Neither party filed responses to the other party’s objections within this
3 time period (or at any time thereafter).
4

3. The Court conducted a de novo review of the record before reaching its decision on

5 Freitag’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. This review included review of Freitag’s
6 moving and reply papers, and there is no reason to believe that any response to the CDCR’s
7 objections would have raised additional issues that the Court did not consider. Moreover,
8 Freitag has never requested that the Court expand the record, see Civ. L.R. 72-3(b)-(c), let
9 alone shown good cause for doing so.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13 Dated: 06/18/12
14

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
Civil Local Rule 72-3(a) requires
Federal Rule of
26 Procedure 72(b) to be filed as a regularly objections pursuant toCivil Local Rule Civil
noticed motion under
7-2.
Oppositions to such motions are due within fourteen days. Civ. L.R. 7-3(a). Neither party
27 followed the proper procedure in this instance, but the Court opted not to order the parties to
why sanctions
28 show cause as to proper form. should not be imposed, or to force the parties to re-file their
objections in the

2