Tarlson v. Foster

Filing 54

Order by Hon. James Donato denying 47 plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NICK G. TARLSON,

Case No. 13-cv-03535-JD

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

9
10

SONIA FOSTER, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 47

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On October 27, 2014, the Court denied the motion of plaintiff Nick G. Tarlson, who is

14

proceeding pro se, to remand this case to state court and granted defendant’s motion for judgment

15

on the pleadings. Dkt. No. 46. On November 6, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to seek

16

reconsideration of the dismissal order. Dkt. No. 47. Leave is denied.

17

The Court denies the request because, even when liberally construed for a pro se litigant, it

18

fails to meet the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9. This rule requires parties to obtain

19

permission from the Court to file a motion for reconsideration. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). The moving

20

party must show: (1) “a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to

21

the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought;” (2) “[t]he

22

emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order;” or (3)

23

“manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were

24

presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b).

25

If leave to file is granted, motions for reconsideration serve a “very limited purpose” and

26

are appropriate “only to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered

27

evidence.” Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Jackson-Shaw Partners No. 46, Ltd., 850 F.Supp. 839, 845

28

(N.D. Cal. 1994) (citation omitted). A motion for reconsideration may not be brought “merely

1

because Plaintiff is unhappy with the judgment . . . or because he disagrees with the ultimate

2

decision.” Bridgeman v. Peralta, No. 11-2132 WQH, 2011 WL 5830427, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov.

3

18, 2011).

4

Plaintiff’s motion does not meet the showing required by Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiff does
not point to a subsequent change in fact or law, or a manifest failure by the Court to consider facts

6

or arguments previously presented. Instead, plaintiff’s motion claims that a material difference in

7

law exists from that presented to the Court, citing to 14 U.S.C. § 823a. Plaintiff claims this statute

8

is “materially different from that which was presented to the Court before entry of its Order”

9

because he “did not know the above statutory law at the time of the Order, and did not present it as

10

part of his argument in opposition to the defendant’s motion.” Dkt. No. 47 at 2. But that is not the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

case. Mr. Tarlson, in fact, previously submitted a declaration that attached an exhibit featuring

12

and discussing Section 823a. Dkt. No. 35, Ex. A. The request for reconsideration does not raise it

13

for the first time. Even giving plaintiff the benefit of the doubt as a pro se litigant, there is nothing

14

new here within the requirements of Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiff is recycling Section 823a to revisit

15

the argument that Ms. Foster was not assigned to duty when she reported the alleged sexual

16

harassment, an argument the Court has already considered and rejected. See Dkt. No. 46.

17

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: January 9, 2015
______________________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2