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)

Download PDF
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?