Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County

Filing 150

Order by Hon. Claudia Wilken granting 142 Motion for Leave to File.(cwlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/19/2015)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

SONOMA COUNTY ASS’N OF RETIRED
EMPLOYEES,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff,

6
7

No. C 09-4432 CW

v.

(Docket No. 142)

SONOMA COUNTY,
Defendant.
________________________________/

In May 2013, after this case was remanded from the Ninth
Circuit, Plaintiff Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees
(SCARE)filed its Second Amended Complaint (2AC) asserting that
Defendant Sonoma County's new cap on healthcare benefit
contributions to retirees constituted a breach of the County’s
longstanding agreement to pay for its retirees’ healthcare
benefits costs in perpetuity.

The County filed a motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

On January 10, 2014, the Court granted the motion

in part, dismissing the 2AC with respect to non-union retirees and
those hired before 1990.

Docket No. 96.

In addition, the Court

precluded Plaintiff from proceeding on any claims based on the
1985 "tie agreement," reasoning that SCARE had failed to identify
a specific ordinance or resolution creating that contract.

Id.

Plaintiff now requests leave to file motion for reconsideration,
noting that the distinction between pre- and post- 1990 hires was
not addressed in Defendant's motion to dismiss SCARE's 2AC or

1

Plaintiff's opposition.

2

material facts have been revealed in the course of discovery.

3

In addition, SCARE contends that new

After considering the parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS

4

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration.

5

Docket No. 142.

6

motion for reconsideration.

7

fifteen pages or less within fourteen days of the date of this

8

order.

9

to seven pages within seven days thereafter.

The request for leave is deemed to constitute the
Defendant may file a response of

Plaintiff may file a reply in support of its motion of up
The matter will be

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

decided on the papers unless a hearing is set by the Court.

11

parties may stipulate to extending the upcoming deadlines.

12

The

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: 2/19/2015

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

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