Hoye v. City of Oakland

Filing 211

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer denying 210 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (crblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2011)

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. CV 07-06411 CRB WALTER B. HOYE, II, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Plaintiff, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant. / 16 17 Plaintiff Walter Hoye moves the Court for leave to file a Motion for Reconsideration 18 of the Court’s Order re Training Materials, filed December 16, 2011 (dkt. 208). Plaintiff 19 brings his Motion under Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), which permits a party to move for 20 reconsideration where there has been “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material 21 facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court.” See dkt. 210. 22 Plaintiff contends that the Court’s Order indicated that it was “unaware of plaintiff’s Oct. 14, 23 2011 Supplemental Brief Re: ‘Approach’ (Docket #196) when making its ruling.” Id. at 1. 24 The Court was not unaware of Plaintiff’s brief, or of Defendant’s simultaneous brief 25 on the same subject (dkt. 195). As the Court stated in its Order, it carefully considered both 26 parties’ papers and arguments. See dkt. 208 at 2. The Order merely noted that the Motion 27 included only a single sentence on the “approach” issue. See id. at 2 (citing dkt. 201 at i). 28 That is accurate. Nonetheless, the Court did not treat the “approach” issue as having been 1 waived. The Court simply did not agree with Plaintiff’s arguments about “approach,” or 2 with his premise that the Ninth Circuit’s partial reversal, based on “[t]he City’s policy of 3 distinguishing between speech that facilitates access to clinics and speech that discourages 4 access,” was an opportunity to revisit this Court’s holding on the “approach” issue. See id. at 5 3 (internal citation omitted). 6 The Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration is therefore DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: December 20, 2011 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 G:\CRBALL\2007\6411\order re reconsideration mpi.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?