Fernando et al v. eBay, Inc. et al

Filing 89

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG in case 4:10-cv-01668-SBA; denying (128) Motion for Reconsideration in case 4:10-cv-02500-SBA (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

OAKLAND DIVISION

9

MOISES ZEPEDA, MICHAEL SPEAR,

Case No: C 10-2500 SBA

10 RONYA OSMAN, BRIAN PATTEE,

CASEY CHING, DENAE ZAMORA,
11 MICHAEL LAVANGA, and GARY

Related to:
No. C 10-1668 SBA

MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all
12 others similarly situated,
13

Plaintiffs,

14

v.

ORDER DENYING PUTATIVE
INTERVENOR RICHARD
BURGESS’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Dkt. 128

15 PAYPAL, INC., E-BAY INC., and DOES 1
16

through 10, inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Reginald Burgess (“Burgess”), who is not a party to the above-captioned case,

20

previously filed three pro se requests: (1) a Notice of Appearance and Request for Service

21

(Dkt. 119); (2) a Request to be Heard re Docket Item 114 (Dkt. 120); and (3) a Request to

22

Intervene as Member of Protected Class and to Join Pending Motion re: Docket Item 38

23

(Dkt. 121). On December 3, 2012, the Court issued an order denying the aforementioned

24

motions “without prejudice to renewal in the event the action is not settled at the

25

forthcoming settlement conference scheduled before Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins.”

26

Dkt. 125 at 2. The settlement conference currently is scheduled for February 7, 2013. Dkt.

27

127.

28

1

Burgess has now filed a motion to reconsider the Court’s prior order, and

2

specifically requests that the Court allow him to intervene “so he may participate in the

3

settlement efforts.” Mot. at 13. However, before filing a motion for reconsideration, the

4

movant must first seek leave to do so under Civil Local Rule 7-9. Burgess has not

5

complied with this requirement and the instant motion otherwise fails to make the requisite

6

showing under Local Rule 7-9. The Court may summarily deny motions that are not filed

7

in compliance with the Court’s local rules. See Tri-Valley CAREs v. U.S. Dept. of Energy,

8

671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion as the result of a failure to

9

comply with local rules is well within a district court’s discretion.”). The fact that Burgess

10

is pro se does not excuse his compliance with the procedural rules of this Court. See

11

Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995).

12

Even if Burgess’s motion for reconsideration were properly before the Court, it fails

13

to articulate compelling grounds for reconsideration. “A motion for reconsideration should

14

not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented

15

with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change

16

in the controlling law.” 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.

17

1999). Here, Burgess’s motion makes no showing under any of those grounds. Rather, he

18

asserts that the Court should allow him to intervene and participate in the settlement

19

conference in order to express opinions regarding the possible terms of a global settlement.

20

However, any concerns or suggestions Burgess may have are better expressed to the

21

attorneys representing the plaintiffs, as opposed to the Court’s authorizing his direct

22

participation at the settlement conference—particularly since Burgess is not an attorney.

23

Accordingly,

24
25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Burgess’s motion for reconsideration is
DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 128.

26
27
28
-2-

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 13, 2012

_________________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-