Brewer v. General Nutrition Corporation

Filing 197

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 196 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CHARLES BREWER,

Case No. 11-cv-03587-YGR

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 196

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On November 12, 2014, the Court denied in part and granted in part plaintiff’s Motion to

13

Certify California Class, and granted defendants’ Motion to Decertify FLSA Collective Action.

14

(Dkt. No. 185.) Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, defendant requests leave to file a motion for

15

reconsideration of portions of that order concerning the appropriate class period for the final pay

16

subclass and the wage statement subclass, as well as the effect of the 2013 amendment to

17

California Labor Code § 226(e) on the appropriate class period. As to the former, defendant

18

argues that a claim for penalties cannot form the basis for a claim under the California Unfair

19

Competition Law’s four-year statute of limitations. As to the latter, defendant argues that the

20

2013 amendment had no retroactive effect.

21

Defendant’s request for leave is DENIED. There is not a proper procedural basis for

22

seeking reconsideration of the class certification order on these grounds. As defendant notes in its

23

motion, a party seeking leave of court to file a motion for reconsideration must show that the

24

Court failed to “consider dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before

25

such interlocutory order.” N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3). While defendant argued for a shorter

26

class period in both these instances, it did not raise the arguments it now seeks to make in its

27

motion for reconsideration. Neither does defendant establish other grounds for reconsideration,

28

i.e. that a material difference in fact or law exists and could not have been presented sooner with

1

reasonable diligence or that new material facts or a change in law has occurred since the time of

2

the order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1), (2).

3

A motion for reconsideration is not a proper procedural vehicle for raising arguments that

4

could, with diligence, have been made in opposition to a motion. The Court, in its discretion, does

5

not find that reopening the class certification issues at this juncture is warranted by defendant’s

6

arguments, whatever their merits.

7

This Order is without prejudice to defendant raising these legal issues in a proper

8

procedural fashion, such as in connection with summary judgment or a stipulation of the parties

9

with respect to the class definition.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Dated: December 5, 2014
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2