Dukes et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Filing 838

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying # 822 # 832 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 01-2252 CRB

DUKES, ET AL.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.,
Defendant.

/

16
17

Wal-Mart previously moved to dismiss or strike the class allegations in Plaintiffs'

18

Fourth Amended Complaint, arguing in relevant part that putative class members had not

19

filed timely administrative charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

20

and could not "piggyback" or "coattail" on the charge filed by former named plaintiff

21

Stephanie Odle. Mot. to Dismiss (dkt. 781) at 23-33. This Court denied Wal-Mart's motion

22

in September 2012, holding that the putative class members could coattail on Odle's charge.

23

Order (dkt. 812) at 13.

24

Wal-Mart now requests leave to seek reconsideration of this Court's order, arguing

25

that an October 2012 development in a case in federal district court in Texas, where Odle

26

filed a separate suit in 2011 seeking to represent a class of Wal-Mart employees different

27

than the class at issue here, constitutes "a change in fact and law that warrants

28

reconsideration of this Court's coattailing ruling." Mot. at 1 (citing Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., No. 11-02954, 2012 WL 5292957 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2012)).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

To be granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration, a party must demonstrate one
of the following:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law
exists from that which was presented to the court before entry of the
interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party shall also
show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for
reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory
order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the
time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the court to consider material facts which were
presented to the court before such interlocutory order.

8

Civil L.R. 7-9(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
9

The development in the Texas litigation is not a new material fact or change in law.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The court there held that Odle's 2011 Texas suit was not timely, Odle, 2012 WL 5292957 at
11

*10, which would only be material if this Court accepted Wal-Mart's premise–squarely
12

rejected in this Court's September 2012 order–that the Fourth Amended Complaint is (like
13

the Texas litigation) a "new" class action attempting to rely on Odle's 1999 administrative
14

charge.
15

Wal-Mart does not purport to identify new facts or law justifying reconsideration of
16

that premise. Rather, it rehashes the same arguments that failed to carry the day when this
17

Court concluded that this is the same case that was initiated in 2001, and that this Court's
18

2002 ruling that putative class members could rely on Odle's charge continues to apply to the
19

subset identified in the Fourth Amended Complaint. See Order at 12-13.
20

Wal-Mart's arguments are not frivolous, but this Court has carefully considered them
21

and made its ruling. Nothing in the proposed motion for reconsideration sheds new light on
22

the issue. The Court DENIES Wal-Mart's request for leave to file a motion for
23

reconsideration.
24
25
26

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 14, 2013
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2001\2252\order denying reconsideration v2.wpd

2