Drevaleva v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Judge William Alsup [denying 55 Motion for Leave to File]. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/14/2018)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
TATYANA EVGENIEVNA DREVALEVA,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, and ROBERT WILKIE, Secretary,
U. S. Department of Veteran’s Affairs,

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.
/

16
17

No. C 18-03748 WHA

In this pro se employment discrimination action, plaintiff moves for reconsideration of

18

the November 2 order denying her request to file supplemental briefing. This order finds no

19

grounds for reconsideration.

20
21
22

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), a party moving for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration must show one of the following:

25

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference
in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court
before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is
sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable
diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such
fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

26

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law
occurring after the time of such order; or

27

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court
before such interlocutory order.

23
24

28

1

Here, plaintiff has not shown that any of the above three grounds applies in this matter.

2

Instead, plaintiffalleges that defendants’ counsel “didn’t act in good faith” and that plaintiff did

3

not previously have the chance to review the case law defendants cited in their motion to dismiss

4

prior to filing her opposition. Moreover, plaintiff already made most of the arguments put forth

5

in her opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thus, allowing plaintiff to repeat her

6

arguments would violate Local Rule 7-9(c), which states that “[n]o motion for leave to file a

7

motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party.”

8

To the extent plaintiff raises new arguments in this motion, plaintiff is advised that a motion for

9

leave to file a motion for reconsideration is an improper vehicle.
Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 14, 2018.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2