Otey v. Crowdflower, Inc. et al
Filing
175
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge Jon S. Tigar, denying 174 Motion for Leave to File. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2013)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
CHRISTOPHER OTEY, et al.,
Case No. 12-cv-05524-JST
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10
CROWDFLOWER, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: ECF No. 174
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Defendants move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of “two discrete factual
matters of substantial significance” to the Court’s order granting conditional certification of an
14
FLSA collective action. ECF No. 174. The motion purports to fall within the ambit of Civil Local
15
Rule 7-9(a), which provides that, prior to entry of judgment, “any party may make a motion before
16
a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any
17
interlocutory order made by that Judge on any ground set forth in Civil L.R. 7-9 (b).” Rule 7-9(b),
18
in turn, lists the following potential grounds of relief: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists
19
from the one presented to the court before the entry of the interlocutory order at issue; (2) the
20
emergence of new material facts or a change in the law after the entry of the interlocutory order at
21
22
issue; or (3) a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal
arguments” that were presented to the Court prior to the entry of the interlocutory order at issue.
23
See Civil L.R. 7-9(b).
24
Here, Defendants do not seek reconsideration of “an interlocutory order” as required by
25
Rule 7-9(a). Instead, they seek reconsideration only of two sentences, or of the factual
26
conclusions set forth in those sentences. That relief is not available. Even if it were, Defendants
27
have not established that the facts or sentences they seek to have the Court reconsider are
28
1
“material” or “dispositive” within the meaning of Rule 7-9(b), because they do not suggest that
2
changing two sentences in the Court’s prior order would change the outcome of the order. In fact,
3
Defendants concede the absence of materiality by stating “that they are not seeking
4
reconsideration of the Court’s conditional certification of a collective action.” ECF No. 174 at 1.
5
At the conditional certification stage, the court determines only whether the plaintiff has
6
submitted sufficient evidence to justify the sending of notice of the action to potential class
7
members. Plaintiffs here met that burden. The Court will reevaluate the collective action under a
8
stricter standard after discovery is completed at the second stage of the certification process. At
9
that stage, both parties will have an opportunity to present a complete factual record on the
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
certification question and the issues subsidiary to that question.
In light of the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration
is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 17, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?