Canatella v. Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman LLP et al

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS by Judge William Alsup [denying 47 Motion for Leave to File]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
RICHARD CANATELLA,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
KRIEG, KELLER, SLOAN, REILLEY &
ROMAN LLP, STEVEN HERMAN; JAMES
KRIEG; JUSTIN FIELDS; ALLISON LANE
COOPER; LAYNE KIM; ALLEN
BLUMENTHAL; and SYED MAJID,

16

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants.
/

17
18

No. C 11-05535 WHA

Plaintiff in this Section 1983 action moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

19

of a dismissal order. Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides that a party moving for reconsideration

20

must show:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(1) That at the time of a motion for leave [to file a motion for
reconsideration], 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; or (2) The emergence of new
material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such
order; or (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.
(emphasis added).

1

Plaintiff only presents background facts surrounding Judge James McBride’s sanctions

2

order that led to the State Bar investigation. The order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss

3

held that, based on the existence of the sanctions order, the State Bar had probable cause

4

to investigate him. This new information is immaterial to that holding.

5

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: March 19, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2