Long Haul, Inc. et al v. Regents of the University of California et al

Filing 153

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 11/28/11. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LONG HAUL INC. and EAST BAY
PRISONER SUPPORT,

10

No. C 09-00168 JSW

11
v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiffs,
12
13

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

14

ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.
/

15
16

Now before the Court are the motions for leave to file motions for reconsideration filed

17

by plaintiffs Long Haul, Inc. (“Long Haul”) and East Bay Prisoner Support (“EBPS”)

18

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and by Lisa Shaffer, Mike Hart, and the United States (collectively,

19

“Federal Defendants”) regarding the Court’s order on the parties’ cross-motions for summary

20

judgment.

21

Under local rule 7-9, a party may seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration any

22

time before judgment. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). A motion for reconsideration may be made on

23

one of three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was

24

presented to the Court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for

25

reconsideration did not know at the time of the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or

26

a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive

27

legal arguments presented before entry of judgment. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). The moving

28

party may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the Court. Id., 7-9(c).

1

Both parties merely seek to reargue arguments previously asserted to the Court, or

2

arguments that should have been raised in their motions for summary judgment. Nevertheless,

3

the GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent they seek to file a motion for reconsideration on

4

the issue of Zuniga’s qualified immunity and the official capacity claims against the University

5

Defendants. The Court DENIES the remainder of Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court GRANTS the

6

Federal Defendants’ motion.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: November 28, 2011
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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
2