Fleming v. Clark

Filing 132

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman denying (130) Motion for Reconsideration in case 3:09-cv-01613-BZ (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2010)

Fleming v. Clark et al

Doc. 132

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. NADIA CLARK, et al., Defendant(s). v. NADIA CLARK, et al., Defendant(s). VICTOR JONES, Plaintiff(s), NOVENDER FLEMING, Plaintiff(s), ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C09-1613 BZ

and Consolidated Case

No. C09-4757 BZ ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before me is plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment order dated September 8, 2010. Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) requires that the

moving party on such a motion show: 1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court; 2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or 3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider 1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

material facts for dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court. Plaintiffs provided the court with no reason why they should be given leave to file a motion for reconsideration under the Local Rules. Instead, plaintiffs argue for the

first time that they intended to defend their First Amendment claim but inadvertently failed to do so when a server crashed. Plaintiffs neither sought an extension to file their opposition nor did plaintiffs mention their failure to oppose defendant's motion on the First Amendment claim in their reply brief. Plaintiffs are reminded that to the extent Mr. Jones

claims he was coerced into signing a statement, that is part of his excessive force claim. In sum, plaintiffs failed to The motion is

carry their burden under Local Rule 7-9. therefore DENIED. Dated: September 14, 2010

Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge
G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FLEMING v. CLARK\ORD DENYING MOT FOR RECONSID.wpd

2