Medhealth Nursing et al v. California Department of Public Health et al

Filing 82

Order by Judge Claudia Wilken denying 75 Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2018)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 DANILO MALLARI, 5 6 7 Case No. 13-cv-04038-CW Plaintiff, v. TRACY VESSIGAULT, et al., 8 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 9 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION TO REJOIN MEDHEALTH NURSING AS PARTY PLAINTIFF (Dkt. No. 75) 10 11 Plaintiff Danilo Mallari moves for leave to file a motion 12 for reconsideration of the Court’s January 3, 2018 order denying 13 Mallari’s motion to amend the scheduling order and rejoin 14 Medhealth Nursing. 15 papers and the record, the Court hereby DENIES Mallari’s motion. 16 See Docket No. 74. Having considered the Civil Local Rule 7-9 governs motions for leave to file a 17 motion for reconsideration. 18 must specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the 19 motion,” as well as one of the following: 20 (1) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (2) (3) It provides that the “moving party 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 The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order; or A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 1 Mallari asserts that he did not hear the deadline for adding additional parties or claims at the case management conference 3 because he was sitting in the gallery and that counsel did not 4 provide him with a copy of the minute order and case management 5 order. 6 scheduling deadlines in August 2017 when he consulted with the 7 Legal Help Center and obtained a copy of the minute order and 8 case management order, and that he moved shortly thereafter to 9 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 rejoin Medhealth as a party plaintiff. He further asserts that he only became aware of the Mallari also alleges that 10 “facts emerged that he has been misrepresented by counsel that 11 caused the dismissal of other meritorious issues of the case as 12 noted [in the Court’s January 3, 2018 order].” 13 With the exception of Mallari’s last argument, all of his 14 arguments are not new and have already been addressed by the 15 January 3, 2018 order. 16 discovered that he was misrepresented by counsel, is construed as 17 an argument that new material facts have emerged since the 18 issuance of the January 3, 2018 order that require 19 reconsideration. 20 explain, however, the nature of counsel’s alleged 21 misrepresentation, when he found out about the alleged 22 misrepresentation, and why the alleged misrepresentation is 23 material to the January 3, 2018 order. 24 indicates that he still has not retained a lawyer to represent 25 Medhealth. 26 order, Medhealth cannot be a party to this case without a lawyer. 27 Docket No. 28 at 3-4, 8. 28 represent Medhealth since he moved to rejoin Medhealth in Mallari’s last argument, that he recently See Civil Local Rule 7-9(2). Mallari does not Moreover, Mallari As the Court advised him in its February 26, 2014 Mallari’s failure to retain a lawyer to 2 1 September 2017 demonstrates a lack of reasonable diligence. 2 Accordingly, Mallari has not met his burden of showing that 3 reconsideration of the January 3, 2018 order is warranted and his 4 motion must be denied. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: March 6, 2018 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 8 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?