Cox v. Allin Corporation Plan et al

Filing 120

ORDER by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong DENYING DEFENDANTS 119 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RAISE ONE ADDITIONAL POINT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2015)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5
6 ELGIN COX,

Plaintiff,

7
8

vs.

9 ALLIN CORPORATION PLAN and UNUM

Case No: C 12-5880 SBA
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RAISE
ONE ADDITIONAL POINT IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
10 AMERICA; DELL, INC.

COMPREHENSIVE WELFARE BENEFITS
11 PLAN; DELL, INC., ADMINISTRATION

AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE;
12 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
13

Defendants.

14
15
16

On September 30, 2014, the Court issued its Order adjudicating the parties’ cross-

17

motions for summary judgment and referring the parties for a mandatory settlement

18

conference before Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu (“Magistrate”). Dkt. 98. On October 20,

19

2014—before the settlement conference was scheduled to take place—Defendants filed a

20

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 101. On October 30, 2014,

21

Plaintiff also filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 109.

22

On November 7, 2014, the parties informed the Court that, from their perspective, it

23

would be pointless to proceed with the settlement conference, which resulted in its

24

cancellation by the Magistrate. Dkt. 110, 111. In view of that development, the Court

25

issued a briefing schedule directing the parties to file their respective responses to the

26

other’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration by December 1, 2014. Dkt.

27

112. That deadline was twice extended based on the parties’ stipulated requests. Dkt. 114,

28

1

116. The parties filed their respective responses on December 11, 2014. Dkt. 117, 118.

2

Both motions are now under submission.

3

On December 30, 2014, Defendants submitted the instant Motion for Leave to Raise

4

One Additional Point in Support of Motion for Reconsideration. Dkt. 119. Local Rule 7-9,

5

which governs motions for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, specifies that:

6

“The moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion.”

7

Civ. L.R. 7-1(b) (emphasis added). No such showing has been made. Defendants readily

8

admit that their “additional point” could and should have been raised in their original

9

motion filed on October 20, 2014, but that “it just occurred [to them]” to make it at this

10

juncture. Id. at 1:24. Moreover, permitting Defendants to, in effect, supplement their

11

motion two months after the fact would be prejudicial to Plaintiff, since briefing on the

12

pending motions is now closed. Accordingly,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Raise One

14

Additional Point in Support of Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Absent exigent

15

circumstances, no additional motions or requests may be filed in this action pending the

16

Court’s ruling on the pending motions for leave to file motions for reconsideration.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/6/15

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-