Cefalu v. Holder

Filing 145

ORDER Granting 138 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION filed by Vincent A. Cefalu. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/21/13. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

VINCENT A. CEFALU,

6
7
8

Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice,

NO. C12-0303 TEH
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

9
Defendant.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

On September 23, 2013, the Court issued an order (“Order”) granting in part and

13 denying in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 135.) On
14 September 26, 2013, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of part of
15 the Order and attached a “Brief in Support of Motion for Reconsideration” (“Reconsid. Br.”)
16 as Exhibit B thereto (Docket Nos. 138, 138-2). Plaintiff argues that: (1) the Court erred in
17 applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to certain of Plaintiff’s claims;
18 (2) the Court failed to analyze Plaintiff’s claim for intentional defacement of his badges
19 under the “materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant standard” articulated
20 in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006); and (3)
21 the Court considered only whether defacement of the badges might be materially adverse to a
22 reasonable employee generally, and not specifically to a “reasonable ATF employee.”
23 Reconsid. Br. at 3-5.
24

The Court is not convinced that Plaintiff has satisfied his burden under Civil Local

25 Rule 7-9, which governs leave to file motions for reconsideration, but the Court nonetheless
26 GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion out of an abundance of caution. Plaintiff shall file his motion
27 for reconsideration on or before October 23, 2013. Defendant shall file an opposition or
28 statement of non-opposition, not to exceed ten pages, on or before November 4, 2013.

1 Plaintiff shall file a reply, not to exceed five pages, on or before November 12, 2013. Unless
2 otherwise ordered, the matter will then be deemed submitted without oral argument.
3
4 IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6 Dated: 10/21/13
7

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9

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