Hughes v. UnumProvident Corporation et al

Filing 99

ORDER by Judge Hamilton Denying 97 Motion for Leave to File A Motion for Reconsideration. (pjhlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/29/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ Before the court is defendants Unum Group (f/k/a Unumprovident Corporation) and First Unum Life Insurance Company's (sued as Unum Corporation) (collectively "defendants") motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9. Defendants seek reconsideration of this court's January 5, 2009 Order granting plaintiff's motion to remand and denying plaintiff's request for attorney's fees. Defendants maintain that reconsideration is warranted because there was a manifest failure by this court to consider material facts, citing Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3).1 Specifically, defendants contend that the court's decision to remand this action was not informed by the understanding that defendants had a concrete interest in the motion to remand insofar as actionable state law claims remain against them. Having carefully read the defendants' papers and considered the relevant legal authority, the court concludes that leave to file a motion for reconsideration is not warranted. Contrary to defendants' contention, the court's decision to remand this action LYLE HUGHES, Plaintiff, No. C 07-4088 PJH ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Leave to file a motion for reconsideration may be granted where a party specifically shows: "A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order." Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3).

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

was made under the assumption that defendants had a concrete interest in the motion to remand. While the court noted that it was "perplexed" as to why defendants opposed the motion to remand, because it appeared that the only remaining claims were state law claims asserted against another defendant, the court expressly stated that "even assuming for the sake of argument that the defendants have a stake in the instant motion insofar as actionable state law claims remain against them, the court finds defendants' diversity jurisdiction argument to lack merit." The court went on to consider, and reject, defendants' argument urging the court to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, because defendants did not meet the standard set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), their motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 28, 2009 ________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2