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)

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