Dunn v. Nob et al

Filing 37

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero denying 36 Motion for Reconsideration (jcslc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/8/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/8/2009: # 1 Cert Serve) (klh, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. JAMES NOE, ET AL., Defendants. ______________________________/ On April 30, 2009, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case and dismissed Plaintiff's claims with prejudice under the doctrine of res judicata. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider that decision. Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), a party is required to obtain leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration. Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides that a party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order must show: 1) "a material difference of fact or law exists from what was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order;" or 2) "the emergence of a 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 or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court" before the interlocutory order was entered. Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration, the Court concludes that none of the requirements of Rule 7-9(b) has been met. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 8, 2009 __________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO United States Magistrate Judge MICHAEL DUNN, Plaintiff, No. C-07-03559 JCS ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Docket No. 36] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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?