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)

Download PDF
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

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?