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

Filing 153


Download PDF
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

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?