Reiser v. Du Bois et al
Filing
44
ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 39 Motion for Reconsideration (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
OAKLAND DIVISION
5
6 HANS REISER,
Plaintiff,
7
8
vs.
Case No: C 11-4735 SBA (pr)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
9 WILLIAM DU BOIS, et al.,
Docket 39
10
Defendants.
11
12
Plaintiff has filed a 23-page Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration,
13
Dkt. 39, which seeks to challenge the Court’s Order Re Various Motions, filed January 28,
14
2013, Dkt. 37. Motions for leave to file a motion for reconsideration are governed by Civil
15
Local Rule 7-9, which states, in relevant part:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(a) Leave of Court Requirement. Before the entry of a
judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and
liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a
motion before a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory
order made by that Judge on any ground set forth in Civil L.R.
7-9 (b). No party may notice a motion for reconsideration
without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.
(b) Form and Content of Motion for Leave. A motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration must be made in
accordance with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-9. The
moving party must specifically show:
(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material
difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to
the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which
reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the
exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for
reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the
interlocutory order; or
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law
occurring after the time of such order; or
1
2
3
4
5
(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.
(c) Prohibition Against Repetition of Argument. No motion
for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any
oral or written argument made by the applying party in support
of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party
now seeks to have reconsidered. Any party who violates this
restriction shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.
6
7
Civ. L.R. 7-9(a)-(c) (emphasis added).
8
Plaintiff’s motion is in violation of the Court’s Standing Orders, which limit motions
9
to 15 pages. On that basis alone, Plaintiff’s motion may be denied. See Tri-Valley CAREs
10
v. U.S. Dept. of Energy 671 F.3d 1113, 1131 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Denial of a motion as the
11
result of a failure to comply with local rules is well within a district court’s discretion.”).
12
That aside, Plaintiff’s motion fails to meet the requirements for reconsideration under Local
13
Rule 7-9. In short, Plaintiff disagrees with the Court’s rulings, and, in a decidedly turgid
14
manner, merely repeats arguments which the Court has already considered and rejected.
15
See Civ. L.R. 7-9(c); Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437, 1442 (9th Cir. 1991)
16
(“Treating the motion for reconsideration as one brought under Rule 59(e), the trial court
17
did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion, because the Fullers presented no
18
arguments which the court had not already considered and rejected.”). Plaintiff’s motion is
19
therefore DENIED.
20
Pursuant to the Court’s January 28, 2013 Order, Plaintiff is reminded that his First
21
Amended Complaint (FAC) is due to be filed by February 27, 2013. Should Plaintiff fail to
22
timely file his FAC and/or if the FAC does not rectify the deficiencies noted by the Court in
23
its prior orders, this action is subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24
41(b). See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal
25
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply
26
with any order of the court.”); accord Yourish v. California, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.
27
1999) (“Under Ninth Circuit precedent, when a plaintiff fails to amend his complaint after
28
-2-
1
the district judge dismisses the complaint with leave to amend, the dismissal is typically
2
considered a dismissal for failing to comply with a court order ….”). Accordingly,
3
4
5
6
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for
Reconsideration (Dkt. 39) is DENIED. This Order terminates Docket 39.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 22, 2013
______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
HANS REISER,
5
6
7
8
Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM H DU BOIS et al,
Defendant.
/
9
10
Case Number: CV11-04735 SBA
11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
12
13
14
15
16
17
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on February 25, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Hans Reiser G31008
Pleasant Valley State Prison
P.O. Box 8500
Coalinga, CA 93210
Dated: February 25, 2013
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk
25
26
27
28
-4-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.11\Reiser4735.denyreconsideration.docx
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-
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?