Garcia v. City of Santa Clara et al
Filing
148
ORDER RE: RESPONSIVE BRIEFING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/19/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
DANIEL C. GARCIA,
Case No. 10-cv-02424-SI
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Defendants.
Re: Dkt. No. 145
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
ORDER RE: RESPONSIVE BRIEFING
ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION
OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12
13
On September 9, 2015, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in
14
part. Dkt. No. 116. Plaintiff, who has been incarcerated during much of this case, opposed the
15
motion pro se from Salinas Valley State Prison. Dkt. No. 112. On July 13, 2016, the Court
16
entered an order appointing counsel for Plaintiff. Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a Motion for
17
Reconsideration of Summary Judgment under Civil Local Rule 7-9. See Dkt. No. 145.
18
Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, neither responsive briefing nor a hearing is required on a
19
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Civil L.R. 7-9(d). The Court may, however,
20
choose to order briefing or set a hearing. Id.
21
Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Seek Reconsideration,
22
not to exceed ten pages, setting forth reasons why reconsideration of summary judgment is
23
inappropriate in this case. Defendants’ response must be filed no later than October 28, 2016.
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 19, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
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?