Rossouw v. Google Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 18 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/26/2014)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ANDRE ROSSOUW,

5
6
7
8

No. C 14-03995 CW
ORDER DENYING
MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE A MOTION
TO RECONSIDER
(Docket No. 18)

Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff Andre Rossouw moves to file a motion to reconsider

11

his application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and

12

preliminary injunction (PI) against Defendant Google, Inc.

13

Court construes Plaintiff's motion as a motion to grant leave to

14

file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's September 9, 2014

15

Order (Docket No. 15) denying his TRO and PI application (Docket

16

No. 3).

17

Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for

18

reconsideration.

The

Having considered the papers filed by Plaintiff, the

19

I.

20

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

Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration

21

motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court

22

to file the motion."

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration

27

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

28

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

A request for leave to file a motion for

1

failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive

2

legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such

3

interlocutory order."

4

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

The Court finds that Plaintiff's motion for leave fails to

5

articulate any new material facts, any change of law after the

6

order was issued, or any failure by the Court to consider material

7

facts.

8

allegations and legal conclusions presented in his application for

9

a TRO and PI.

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

Plaintiff's motion merely recites the

The exhibits attached to this motion are either

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

unauthenticated or irrelevant, as they were in the original

11

application.

12

new material facts or law after this Court issued its order and he

13

has not identified any failure by this Court to consider material

14

facts, he has not shown grounds for leave to file a motion for

15

reconsideration under Local Rule 7–9(b)(2).

Because Plaintiff has not shown the emergence of any

16

CONCLUSION

17

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's

18

request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration (Docket No.

19

18).

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 26, 2014
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2