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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?