Schafler v. Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Filing 18

ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/9/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

PEPI SCHAFLER,

9
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH,

12

No. C 14-1879 PJH

Defendant.
_______________________________/

13
14
15
16

Before the court is plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the June 26, 2014 order
denying plaintiff's motion for recusal. The motion is DENIED.
Civil Local Rule 7-9 authorizes parties to seek leave to file a motion for

17

reconsideration "[b]efore entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights

18

and liabilities of all the parties in a case." Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). "No party may notice a motion

19

for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion." Id.

20

Here, plaintiff did not seek leave of court before filing the motion. In addition,

21

plaintiff's motion fails to meet the standard for seeking reconsideration. In seeking leave to

22

file a motion for reconsideration,

23

[t]he moving party must specifically show

24

(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

25
26
27
28

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after
the time of such order; or

1
2

(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.

3

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). In addition, the party seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration

4

may not repeat any argument previously made in support of or in opposition to the

5

interlocutory order which the party seeks to have reconsidered. Id. 7-9(c).

6

Here, plaintiff has made no showing that a material difference in fact or law exists

7

from that which was presented to the court before entry of the order denying the motion for

8

recusal. Nor has plaintiff shown that any new material facts have emerged or that any

9

change of law has occurred since the issuance of the order, or that the court failed to
consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Rather, plaintiff simply reiterates

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

that recusal is warranted because certain issues in other cases brought by plaintiff in this

12

court were in plaintiff's view wrongly decided.

13

As the court explained in the June 26, 2014 order, a judge's prior adverse rulings

14

"almost never" provide a sufficient cause for recusal. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540,

15

555 (1994). Recusal is warranted only "if rulings are based on extrajudicial ‘knowledge that

16

the [judge] ought not to possess' or ‘reveal such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism

17

as to make fair judgment impossible.'" Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club LLC, 742

18

F.3d 1215, 1220 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Liteky, 510 U.S. at 550, 555).

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: July 9, 2014
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2