Vieste, LLC et al v. Hill Redwood Development, LTD. et al

Filing 355

Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu DENYING 351 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Partial Reconsideration.(dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/1/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
VIESTE, LLC, ET AL.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
RECONSIDERATION

HILL REDWOOD DEVELOPMENT, ET AL.,

15

No. C-09-04024 JSW (DMR)

Defendants.
___________________________________/

16
17

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for partial

18

reconsideration of the Court’s June 6, 2011 order on Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions pursuant to

19

Civil Local Rule 7-9. [Docket No. 351.]

20

However, Civil Local Rule 7-9 does not appear to apply to motions for reconsideration of a

21

Magistrate Judge’s order. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a) cmt. Instead, procedures governing review

22

of a pretrial order by a Magistrate Judge on non-dispositive matters are governed by 28 U.S.C. §

23

636(b)(1)(A) (“[a] judge may reconsider any pretrial matter . . . where it has been shown that the

24

magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law”) and Federal Rule of Civil

25

Procedure 72(a) (providing that any objections to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive

26

matter must be served and filed within 14 days of service of the order). See also N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R.

27

72. “A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

28

72(a).

1

Further, a motion for reconsideration may only be made on one of three grounds: (1) a

2

material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court, which, in the

3

exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for reconsideration did not know at the time of

4

the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the

5

Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before entry of the order.

6

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). None of those grounds are met here. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for

7

leave to file a motion for partial reconsideration is DENIED.

Dated: July 1, 2011
11

yu

ER

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

A

H

13

LI

DONNA M. RYUonna M. R
Jud e D
United StatesgMagistrate Judge

12

RT

For the Northern District of California

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

NO

United States District Court

10

R NIA

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FO

S
UNIT
ED

9

RT
U
O

8

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C