Teresa Aguirre v. State of California et al

Filing 157

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 156 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TERESA AGUIRRE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.16-cv-05564-HSG

v.
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 156

12
13

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff Teresa Aguirre requested leave to file a motion for

14

reconsideration of the Court’s order reconsidering in part its order granting partial summary

15

judgment. Dkt. No. 156. In the April 25, 2018 order, the Court discussed the scope of the issues

16

of fact for trial as to Plaintiff’s interference claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29

17

U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. (“FMLA), and the California Family Rights Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §

18

12945.2 (“CFRA”). Dkt. No. 155 at 2. A party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order

19

must “show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” and—as relevant here—either that “a

20

material difference in law or fact exists from that which was presented to the Court” before the

21

challenged order, or “a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal

22

arguments” presented to it before its issuance of the challenged order. Civil L.R. 7-9(b). A

23

motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for perpetually relitigating the Court’s rulings, or a

24

substitute for appeal. See Durkee v. Ford Motor Co., No. C 14-0617 PJH, 2015 WL 1156765

25

(N.D. Cal. 2015) at * 2 (“[M]ere disagreement with a court’s order does not provide a basis for

26

reconsideration.”) (citation omitted); GSI Tech., Inc. v. United Memories, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-01081-

27

PSG, 2015 WL 4463742 (N.D. Cal. 2015) at * 4 (stating that “reconsideration is not an

28

opportunity to relitigate issues that have already been thoughtfully decided”) (citation and internal

1

quotation marks omitted).

2

Plaintiff has shown neither the existence of a newly material legal or factual difference, nor

3

has she shown a failure on the Court’s part to consider material facts or dispositive arguments. To

4

the extent Plaintiff continues to dispute the manner in which the Court will frame the issues for

5

trial, and the Court’s rejection of her “per se violation” theory, her position is preserved for appeal.

6

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: 5/14/2018

9
10
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2