Lopez et al v. Equifax Information Services LLC et al

Filing 152

ORDER DENYING 143 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg on November 17, 2022. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2022)

Download PDF
Case 3:19-cv-01954-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSE ALFREDO LOPEZ, et al., Case No. 19-cv-01954-RS Plaintiffs, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California v. 12 13 14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant. 15 16 Plaintiffs seek leave to file a motion to reconsider the order entered May 18, 2022, granting 17 partial summary judgment to Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”). The 18 motion is premised on an interpretive rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 19 (“CFPB”) in July 2022 regarding the “permissible purpose clause of the FCRA,” which was 20 addressed in the May 2022 order. Dkt. 143, at 3–4. Under this new rule, Plaintiffs contend, 21 summary judgment should have been denied as to their permissible purposes claims for Experian’s 22 conduct prior to May 2018. 23 The motion is denied. First, Plaintiffs have offered no explanation for why they seek 24 reconsideration roughly two months after the publication of the CFPB’s interpretive rule. Such a 25 delay does not motivate in favor of finding Plaintiffs were reasonably diligent in seeking leave. 26 See York v. Bank of America, No. 14-cv-02471-RS, 2016 WL 7033956, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 27 2016). Second, and more importantly, Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing to seek leave 28 for reconsideration under Local Rule 7-9. While that Rule allows the moving party to seek leave Case 3:19-cv-01954-RS Document 152 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 2 1 for reconsideration if he or she can demonstrate “[t]he emergence of new material facts or a 2 change of law occurring after the time of [the] order,” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b), the Ninth Circuit has 3 consistently held that “a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 4 circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 5 clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, 6 Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added) (quoting 7 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). Plaintiffs have not met this 8 threshold; indeed, they concede the CFPB is merely persuasive authority, not controlling. The 9 motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is thus denied.1 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: November 17, 2022 ______________________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file two documents under seal is granted. See Dkt. 144. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE CASE NO. 19-cv-01954-RS 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?