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)
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?