Castro v. City of Union City et al

Filing 149

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 147 Motion for Leave to File. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GARY CASTRO,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
CITY OF UNION CITY, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-00272-MEJ
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 147

Defendants.

12
13

Civil Local Rule 7-9 allows a party to file a motion for leave to file a motion for

14

reconsideration of any interlocutory order. As is relevant here, “[t]he moving party must

15

specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion, and . . . [t]he emergence of new

16

material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order[.]” Civ. L.R. 79-(b)(2).

17

Defendants City of Union City and Officer Christopher Figueiredo seek leave to file a

18

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 2016 Order denying Officer Figueiredo qualified

19

immunity. Mot., Dkt. No. 147; see Order re: Mot. for Summ. J., Dkt. No. 111. Defendants’

20

Motion is based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in White v. Pauly, 137 S. Ct. 548 (2017), which

21

Defendants contend constitutes new law regarding qualified immunity. Mot. at 4-6.

22

The Court cannot find Defendants acted diligently. Defendants argue their Motion is

23

timely because it was unknown whether Plaintiff Gary Castro would prosecute his case pro se

24

upon the withdrawal of his former counsel. Id. at 4; see Dkt. No. 125 (Nov. 22, 2016 order

25

granting motion to withdraw). The Court did not stay this case upon the withdrawal of Plaintiff’s

26

counsel. Thus, while Defendants may have considered the action to be in “suspended animation”

27

(Mot. at 4), nothing prevented Defendants from seeking reconsideration as early as January 2017,

28

1

when the Supreme Court issued its decision in White.1 Because Defendants waited more than one

2

year to request leave to file the motion for reconsideration, the Court DENIES the Motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: February 28, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendants contend the case “reactiv[ed]” when the parties filed their joint case management
statement on February 22, 2018. Mot. at 4. But the Court scheduled the March 1, 2018 case
management conference on November 21, 2017. Dkt. No. 144. Defendants do not explain why
they waited three months after the Court scheduled the CMC to file the instant Motion.
2