DeVries v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Filing 65

Order re 64 Motion for Reconsideration by Hon. William H. Orrick. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SEAN GILBERT DEVRIES,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-02953-WHO
ORDER RE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 64

Defendant.

12
13

On May 23, 2017, plaintiff DeVries filed a motion for leave, seeking permission to file a

14

motion for reconsideration of my February 24, 2017 order compelling arbitration. Mot. for Leave

15

(Dkt. No. 61). DeVries’s motion asserted that a California Supreme Court case, McGill v.

16

Citibank, N.A., 393 P.3d 85 (Cal. 2017), published on April 6, 2017, was a material change in law

17

that justified reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9(b)(2). Id. at 4. I denied DeVries motion for

18

leave, concluding that McGill was not a material change in law and did not alter my prior analysis.

19

Order Denying Leave at 4, (Dkt. No. 63). I also denied DeVries’s motion on the basis that he had

20

made no attempt to demonstrate reasonable diligence, which is a separate and independent

21

requirement when seeking leave to file a reconsideration motion under Local Rule 7-9(b). Id. at 3.

22

In my discussion of diligence I noted that, based on representations from Experian, it appeared

23

that DeVries had failed to comply with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) deadlines,

24

could be facing dismissal in that forum, and could be bringing a motion for reconsideration to

25

avoid an unfavorable dismissal before the AAA. Order Denying Leave at 2-3.

26

DeVries now moves for reconsideration of my Order Denying Leave, asserting that

27

Experian’s representations and guesses regarding his non-compliance with the AAA deadlines

28

were incorrect. He asserts that he was not receiving correspondence from the AAA and so was

1

unaware that he was supposed to be filing additional documents. Reconsideration Mot. at 2-3

2

(Dkt. No. 64). DeVries asks that I reconsider or correct my prior Order to reflect these facts. Id.

3

I am sympathetic to DeVries’s desire to correct the perception that he was dilatory in

4

pursuing his claims before the AAA and he has presented convincing evidence that his failure to

5

file required documents in those proceedings was the result of misaddressed correspondence from

6

the AAA. See Reese Decl. ¶¶ 9-10 (Dkt. No. 64-1).

7

Nevertheless, this evidence does not justify reconsideration of my Order Denying Leave.

8

My conclusion that reconsideration was inappropriate because DeVries had made no attempt to

9

demonstrate reasonable diligence remains valid: DeVries made no effort to explain why he had
waited 47 days after the publication of McGill to seek leave, and makes no effort now. More

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

importantly, DeVries’s additional evidence regarding his good faith attempts to comply with AAA

12

deadlines does not impact my conclusion that McGill is not a material change in law and is

13

therefore not a valid basis for reconsideration. DeVries does not challenge that portion of my

14

Order, which was an independent and dispositive basis for denying DeVries’s motion for leave.

15
16
17
18

I therefore acknowledge DeVries’s evidence demonstrating that he has attempted to
comply with the AAA procedural requirements and DENY his motion for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 8, 2017

19
20
William H. Orrick
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2