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)

Download PDF
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?