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)
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?