Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez v. Tigran Gumushyan et al

Filing 134

Order by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denying 133 Motion for Reconsideration. (lblc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

San Francisco Division

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ,

Case No. 16-cv-07236-LB

Plaintiff,

13
v.

14
15

TIGRAN GUMUSHYAN, et al.,
Defendants.

16

ORDER DENYING THE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Re: ECF No. 133

17

Ricardo Calderon Lopez filed this case against the United States, the Commissioner of the

18

Social Security Administration, and three Administration employees.1 On the defendants’ motion,

19

the court dismissed Mr. Lopez’s claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of

20

sovereign immunity and 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), (h).2 Mr. Lopez now requests leave to file a motion

21

for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9 and, in doing so, argues only that the defendants’

22

subject-matter defense is “erroneous” and the court’s order “contrary to law.”3
A district court can “reconsider” final judgments or appealable interlocutory orders under

23
24

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) (governing motions to alter or amend judgments) and 60(b)

25
See generally Compl. – ECF No. 1. Record citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File
(“ECF”); pinpoint citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the top of documents.

26

1

27

2

See Order – ECF No. 131.

28

3

Motion for Leave to File – ECF No. 133 at 1–2.

ORDER — No. 16-cv-07236-LB

1

(governing motions for relief from a final judgment). See Balla v. Idaho Bd. of Corr., 869 F.2d

2

461, 466–67 (9th Cir. 1989). A district court can also “reconsider” non-final judgments pursuant

3

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and the court’s “inherent power rooted firmly in the

4

common law” to “rescind an interlocutory order over which it has jurisdiction.” City of Los

5

Angeles v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2001). Reconsideration is

6

appropriate when (1) the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) the underlying

7

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

8

law. See School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.

9

1993). “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting reconsideration.” Id.

10

Under this District’s Civil Local Rules, a party seeking reconsideration must first request

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

permission from the court before filing a motion for reconsideration. Civil L.R. 7-9. In seeking

12

permission, the party must show that (1) at the time of the motion, a material difference in fact or

13

law exists that was not previously presented to the court, (2) there has been an emergence of new

14

material facts or a change in law since the court issued the order, or (3) there was a “manifest

15

failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments” that were presented.

16

Id. 7-9(b). “No motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written

17

argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order

18

which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Id. 7-9(c).

19

Here, Mr. Lopez has not satisfied this standard. He has not shown a material difference in law

20

or fact that was not previously presented to the court, an emergence of new facts or a change in the

21

law since the court’s order, or that the court’s dismissal was in clear error, manifestly unjust, or

22

unresponsive to dispositive legal arguments. He asserts only that the court’s order was “contrary to

23

law,” without explanation, reasoning, or legal citation. The court therefore denies Mr. Lopez’s

24

request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: May 30, 2017

27

______________________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

28
ORDER — No. 16-cv-07236-LB

2