Cobb et al v. Brede et al

Filing 139

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 138 Motion for Reconsideration (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 Northern District of California 5 6 JONATHAN D. COBB, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, 7 v. 8 ERNEST BREDE, et al., No. C 10-03907 MEJ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 138) 9 10 On January 6, 2012, the Court issued an Order dismissing Plaintiffs' lawsuit. Dkt. No. 137. 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Defendants. _____________________________________/ Plaintiffs now request leave to file a motion for reconsideration with respect to the Court's Order. 13 Dkt. No. 138. In their motion, Plaintiffs seek permission to file their "Motion for De Novo 14 Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge" pursuant to FRCP 72(b), 28 15 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 72-3(a). Id. at 1. It is unclear why Plaintiffs bring their 16 motion on these grounds as the rules they identify only address referrals to magistrate judges from 17 district court judges. Here, the matter was originally assigned to this Court and Plaintiffs filed their 18 express consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction on October 12, 2010. Dkt. No. 8. Accordingly, the 19 rules cited by Plaintiffs are inapplicable to this situation since the undersigned is the presiding judge 20 pursuant to the consent of both parties and no matter has been referred from a district court judge. 21 As FRCP 72 cannot apply to this matter, the Court shall construe Plaintiffs' motion as a 22 request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9. This Rule requires 23 Plaintiffs to specifically show one of the following for leave to be granted: 24 25 26 (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, 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; 27 28 (2) The emergence of new material facts or change of law occurring after the time of such order; or 1 2 (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. 3 Upon review of Plaintiffs' motion, the Court finds that it fails to meet any of the requirements under 4 Local Rule 7-9(b). Plaintiffs contend that there was "a manifest failure by the Court to consider 5 material facts," but they fail to specifically identify any facts that were presented earlier and not 6 considered by the Court, or that would affect the Court's rationale for its decision. Dkt. No. 138 at 2. 7 Because Plaintiffs' motion essentially addresses issues and facts that were already considered by the 8 Court in its previous Order, the motion is DENIED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: January 20, 2011 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 13 _______________________________ Maria-Elena James Chief United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 2 3 JONATHAN D COBB SR Case Number: 10-03907 MEJ 4 Plaintiff, 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. 6 ERNEST BREDE 7 Defendant. 8 9 10 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on January 20, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 15 16 17 Jonathan D. Cobb, Sr. 828 Weeks St. Palo Alto, CA 94303 Walter Arlen St. Clair 830 Weeks St Palo Alto, CA 94303 18 19 20 Dated: January 20, 2012 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Brenda Tolbert, Deputy Clerk 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?