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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?