General Employees Trust Fund et al v. East Bay Building Services et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Alsup denying 29 Motion for Reconsideration (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2010) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/30/2010: # 1 Certificate of Service) (wsn, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. EAST BAY BUILDING SERVICES, a partnership, ABDULLAH HOMRAN, individually and as a partner in EAST BAY BUILDING SERVICES, and NABILA HOMRAN, individually and as a partner in EAST BAY BUILDING SERVICES, Defendants. / ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION GENERAL EMPLOYEES TRUST FUND and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GENERAL EMPLOYEES TRUST FUND, Plaintiffs, FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

No. C 09-02722 WHA

In this ERISA action, plaintiffs General Employees Trust Fund and Board of Trustees of General Employees Trust Fund were granted partial summary judgment against defendant East Bay Building Services, Abdullah Homran and Nabila Homran. Defendants, who are proceeding pro se, have now filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides that a party moving for reconsideration must show: (1) That at the time of a motion for leave [to file a motion for reconsideration], a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. Defendants have not shown any of the above. Their motion merely repeats almost verbatim statements from their amended answer to the complaint (Dkt. No. 6). Their motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2