Green v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co.

Filing 21

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER 20 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/27/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 No. C 13-05431 SI RON GREEN, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER Plaintiff, v. 14 ROSS ISLAND SAND & GRAVEL CO., 15 Defendant. / 16 17 On January 17, 2014, this Court granted plaintiff Ron Green’s motion to remand and ordered 18 the case be remanded back to state court. Docket No. 18. The same day, defendant Ross Island Sand 19 & Gravel, Co. filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Docket No. 20. Defendant 20 asks the Court to reverse its order to remand, arguing that to resolve the issue of removability, the court 21 must inquire into plaintiff’s seaman status and determine whether the plaintiff fraudulently filed his 22 Jones Act claim. Id. 23 “Reconsideration is appropriate if the district court (1) is presented with newly discovered 24 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an 25 intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 26 1993). Reconsideration should be used conservatively, because it is an “extraordinary remedy, to be 27 used sparingly in the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Carroll v. Nakatani, 28 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting 12 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 59.30[4] (3d ed. 2000)). Local Rule 7-9 requires that parties request leave of the court to file a motion 1 for reconsideration. Movants are prohibited from repeating any argument made previously, and must 2 show a material difference or an intervening change in the facts or the law, or a manifest failure by the 3 court to consider dispositive facts or legal arguments. L.R. 7-9. In the prior order granting plaintiff’s motion to remand, this Court held that no controlling Ninth 5 Circuit precedent directs district courts to utilize a targeted summary judgment-like procedure to 6 determine the removability of every Jones Act case. Further, for reasons articulated in the order, this 7 Court determined that this case involves factual analyses and contested factual assertions, not reasonably 8 susceptible to pre-discovery summary judgment proceedings. Defendant has not shown an intervening 9 change in the facts or the law that requires a district court to conduct this inquiry. Nor has defendant 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 4 shown a manifest failure of the Court to consider legal arguments. For the reasons enunciated in the 11 prior order, the Court concluded the summary judgment-like procedure is inappropriate here and 12 declined to proceed with defendant’s recommended approach. There is no need to reconsider. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 17 Dated: January 27, 2014 18 SUSAN ILLSTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?