Wilkins-Jones v. County of Alameda

Filing 201

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 185 Plaintiff's Application for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SHAWNA WILKINS-JONES,

9

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-08-1485 EMC

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 185)
13
14
15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Shawna Wilkins-Jones applies for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the

17

Court’s May 28, 2010 Order granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss her request for injunctive

18

relief. The Court had found, in relevant part, that Ms. Wilkins-Jones lacked standing because she

19

could not “establish a real and immediate threat” of future injury. Docket No. 93.

20

Ms. Wilkins-Jones filed her first motion for reconsideration with the Court on June 7, 2010,

21

arguing that the Court had failed to consider dispositive legal arguments Plaintiff had presented.

22

Docket No. 95; L. R. 7-9(b)(3). Specifically, Plaintiff argued that even if she lacked standing to

23

request injunctive relief for her federal causes of action, she still had standing under state law to

24

request injunctive relief for those causes of action. Id. at 2. The Court denied the motion for

25

reconsideration. Docket No. 105. Plaintiff now seeks leave of the Court to file an additional motion

26

for reconsideration. Docket No. 185.

27
28

Local Rule 7-9(a) requires a party to seek leave of Court before filing a motion for
reconsideration. In a motion for leave, the moving party must demonstrate that (1) a material

1

difference in fact and law exists from that which was presented to the Court; (2) new law or material

2

facts have emerged; or (3) the Court manifestly failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal

3

arguments. L. R. 7-9(b). The Rules prohibit a party from repeating arguments already presented to

4

the Court. L. R. 7-9(c).

5

In this case, Plaintiff’s motion merely restates the same basis for reconsideration that she

Plaintiff’s standing arguments in its denial of the motion for reconsideration, it did address them in

8

its original order granting the motion dismiss. The Court found that constitutional standing

9

requirements applied to all of Plaintiff’s causes of action, and that therefore “plaintiff cannot seek

10

injunctive relief under any of her causes of action.” Docket No. 93 at 4 (emphasis added); see also

11
For the Northern District of California

raised in her previous motion, which the Court denied. Though the Court did not respond to

7

United States District Court

6

id. at 6 (dismissing plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees under state law because it is predicated on

12

her ability to obtain injunctive relief).

13

This Court sees no need to reconsider Judge Patel’s ruling. The Court notes that the

14

Supreme Court has mandated that “a plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of

15

relief sought.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167, 185 (2000).

16

Moreover, her ruling appears consistent with case law holding that federal standing requirement

17

governs in federal court even as to state claims that would otherwise confer standing under more

18

lenient criteria in state court. See Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998,

19

1022 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] plaintiff whose cause of action . . . is perfectly viable in state court under

20

state law may nonetheless be foreclosed from litigating the same cause of action in federal court, if

21

he cannot demonstrate the requisite injury to establish Article III standing.”) (quotation omitted);

22

Dietz v. Comcast Corp., No. C 06-06352, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94333, at *10-12 (N.D. Cal. Dec.

23

21, 2006). Therefore, Rule 7-9 provides no basis to grant her motion.

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

2

1

II.

CONCLUSION

2

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

3

This order disposes of Docket No. 185.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: July 21, 2011

8
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3