K.C., et al v. O'Connell, et al

Filing 162

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION the State Defendants' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is denied. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on April 21, 2015. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

K.C., by and through Erica C., her guardian,
et al.,

14
15
16

v.
TOM TORLAKSON, in his official capacity
as Superintendent of Public Instruction for
the State of California, et al.,
Defendant.
/

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs,

12
13

No. C 05-4077 MMC

Before the Court is the Amended Request for Leave to File Motion for
Reconsideration and Amended Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s March 20, 2015
Order, each said motion filed April 17, 2015, by defendants California State Board of
Education, State of California Department of Education, and State Superintendent of Public
Instruction Tom Torlakson (collectively “State Defendants”). Having read and considered
the motions, the Court rules as follows.
In support of their Motion for Leave, the State Defendants rely on Civil Local Rule
7-9(b)(3), which provides as a ground for such leave “a manifest failure by the Court to
consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.” See Civil L.R. 7-3(b)(3). In
particular, citing two sections of the transcript of the hearing conducted on plaintiffs’ motion
for attorneys’ fees, the State Defendants argue reconsideration is warranted because the

1

Court did not exercise its discretion in determining to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over the

2

fee dispute and, instead, made such determination based on the mistaken understanding

3

that it had been directed to do so by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

4

As reflected in the Court’s findings at the hearing, however, the Court did make its

5

own determination to exercise ancillary jurisdiction and did not believe it was compelled by

6

the Court of Appeals to do so. The first section of the transcript on which the State

7

Defendants rely (see Mot. at 4:17-18 (citing March 20, 2015 Hr’g Tr. (hereinafter “Tr.”) at

8

3:5-10, 3:23-25)), does not support the State Defendants’ characterization of the Court’s

9

ruling, particularly when read in the context of the Court’s further discussion of the issue

10

(see Tr. at 4:1-6 (finding State Defendants’ arguments did not overcome “policy

11

considerations” in favor of exercising jurisdiction); see also Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reasonable

12

Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, filed January 30, 2015 at 10-14 (arguing applicable policies

13

favor exercise of ancillary jurisdiction)). The second section of the transcript on which the

14

State Defendants rely (see Mot. at 4:20-23 (citing Tr. at 4:12-22)) likewise is unavailing, as

15

that section relates to a different issue under consideration at the hearing and not the issue

16

of ancillary jurisdiction.

17

Accordingly, the State Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for

18

reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
Dated: April 21, 2015
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2