Chadam et al v. Palo Alto Unified School District

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 52 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

JAMES CHADAM and JENNIFER CHADAM,
individually and on behalf of
their minor children A.C. and
C.C.,

6

Plaintiffs,

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 13-4129 CW
ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A MOTION
TO RECONSIDER
(Docket No. 52)

v.
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT, a governmental entity
created and existing under the
laws of the State of California,
Defendant.
________________________________/

12
Plaintiffs James and Jennifer Chadam, on behalf of themselves

13
14

and their minor children A.C. and C.C. (the Chadams), move for

15

leave to file a motion to reconsider the Court’s November 4, 2014

16

Order dismissing their Second Amended Complaint against Palo Alto

17

Unified School District (PAUSD).

18

filed by the Chadams, the Court GRANTS their motion for leave to

19

file a motion for reconsideration.

20

I.

Having considered the papers

Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration

21

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) provides, “No party may notice a

22

motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court

23

to file the motion.”

24

reconsideration may only be granted if the moving party shows: (1)

25

that “at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference

26

in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court

27

before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration

28

is sought”; (2) “the emergence of new material facts or change of

A request for leave to file a motion for

1

law occurring after the time of such order”; or (3) “a manifest

2

failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive

3

legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such

4

interlocutory order.”

5

II.

Civil L.R. 7-9(b).

Discussion

6

While the Court finds that the Chadams’ motion for leave

7

fails to articulate any new material facts, any change of law

8

after the order was issued, or any failure by the Court to

9

consider material facts, the Court will nonetheless grant them

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

leave to file a motion for reconsideration that meets the standard

11

above.

12

more than ten pages.

13

orders one, and the motion will not be granted unless an

14

opposition is called for.

Within seven days, the Chadams may file a motion of no
No opposition need be filed unless the Court

CONCLUSION

15
16

For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS the

17

Chadams’ request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

18

(Docket No. 52).

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 21, 2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2