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)

Download PDF
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

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?