Garcia et al v. City of Napa et al

Filing 40

ORDER re 38 Objection filed by Perfecto Bauer Garcia, Rudy B. Garcia. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on 1/27/14. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PERFECTO B. GARCIA,
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

No. C -13-03886 EDL
ORDER

v.
CITY OF NAPA, et al.,
Defendants.

/

13
14
15
16

On January 15, 2014, the Court filed an Order Granting Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss
without leave to amend. On January 24, 2014, the Court entered judgment in this case.
On January 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a “Rebuttal of Order Granting Defendant Lieberstein’s

17

Motion to Dismiss Without Leave to Amend and Granting City Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

18

Without Leave to Amend.” The Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a Motion for Leave to File a

19

Motion for Reconsideration. Civil Local Rule 7-9 governs motions for leave to file motions for

20

reconsideration. Subsection (b) of that Rule states:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(b) Form and Content of Motion for Leave. A motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration must be made in accordance with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-9.
The moving party must specifically show:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, 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.
Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Further, a district court has the discretion to reconsider its prior orders. Sch. Dist.
No. 1 J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.1993). Reconsideration

1

is appropriate if the district court: (1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed

2

clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

3

controlling law." Id.; see also Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Generally, motions for reconsideration are

4

disfavored, and are not the place for parties to make new arguments not raised in their original

5

briefs. Northwest Acceptance Corp. v. Lynnwood Equip., Inc., 841 F.2d 918, 925-26 (9th

6

Cir.1988). Nor is reconsideration to be used to ask the Court to rethink what it has already thought.

7

See United States v. Rezzonico, 32 F.Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz.1998) (citing Above the Belt,

8

Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D. Va.1983)).

9

In his filing, Plaintiff argues generally that he has complied with all procedural requirements

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

for prosecuting this case and reiterates his belief that Defendants have harassed and threatened him

11

and his family. However, Plaintiff has failed to make the required showing under Local Rule 7-9(b)

12

to obtain reconsideration. He has not pointed to a “material difference in fact or law” that exists

13

from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the Court’s January 15, 2014 Order and

14

January 24, 2014 Judgment. He has not pointed to “the emergence of new material facts or a change

15

of law occurring after the time of” the Court’s Order, nor has he shown a “manifest failure by the

16

Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court”

17

before the Court’s Order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

18

is denied.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
Dated: 1/27/14
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3

PERFECT B. GARCIA et al,
Case Number: CV13-03886 EDL

4
Plaintiff,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

5
v.
6
CITY OF NAPA et al,
7
Defendant.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on January 28, 2014, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said
envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located
in the Clerk's office.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Perfecto Bauer Garcia
2006 Swan Way
Fairfield, CA 94533
Rudy B. Garcia
563 Monroe Street
Napa, CA 94559
Dated: January 28, 2014
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa R Clark, Deputy Clerk

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3