Sleeping Well, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Company

Filing 58

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING PLAINTIFFS 39 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RECONSIDERATION (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2011)

Sleeping Well, LLC v. The Travelers Indemnity Company

Doc. 58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 10-03658 CW SLEEPING WELL, LLC, Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, RECONSIDERATION (Docket No. 39)

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant. /

Plaintiff Sleeping Well, LLC, moves pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-9 for clarification of the December 23, 2010 Order Denying CrossMotions for Summary Judgment, which was issued by the judge to whom this case was then assigned.1 Defendant St. Paul Fire and Marine

Insurance Company, erroneously sued as The Travelers Indemnity Company, opposes the motion. Neither Civil L.R. 7-9, nor any other Civil Local Rule, provides for a motion for clarification. Further, the Court finds

the December 23, 2010 to be clear, unambiguous and not requiring clarification. Plaintiff also has not met its burden to justify granting leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Under Civil L.R. 7-9,

a party may ask a court to reconsider an interlocutory order if the party can specifically show: (1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was

On January 3, 2011, after Plaintiff's current motion was filed, this case was reassigned to the undersigned.

1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

presented order for also must diligence know such order; or

to the Court before entry of the interlocutory which reconsideration is sought. The party show that in the exercise of reasonable the party applying for reconsideration did not fact or law at the time of the interlocutory

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) 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). Plaintiff relies on Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3), but

fails to establish a manifest failure by the previously assigned judge to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Docket No. 39.)

Dated: 3/8/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge

2