Teresa Aguirre v. State of California et al

Filing 93

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Denying 90 Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/13/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TERESA AGUIRRE,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.16-cv-05564-HSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 90

12
On December 9, 2017, Plaintiff requested leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the

13
14

Court’s summary judgment order. Dkt. No. 90. In the November 16, 2017 order, the Court

15

denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants’ motion for summary

16

judgment, except as to the issue of whether Defendants discouraged Plaintiff from exercising her

17

rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (“FMLA”). Dkt. No. 81 at 23-24.

18

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration “because of a manifest failure by the

19

Court to consider material facts and/or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the

20

Court” before the issuance of its order. Dkt. No. 90 at 3. The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion.
A party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order must “show reasonable diligence

21
22

in bringing the motion” and—as relevant here—“a manifest failure by the Court to consider

23

material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before” issuance

24

of the challenged order. Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3). “No motion for leave to file a motion for

25

reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party . . . in

26

opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Civil L.R.

27

7-9(c).

28

Plaintiff’s motion amounts to no more than a repetition and rehashing of the arguments she

1

made at the summary judgment stage. She asserts that the Court made “five erroneous findings

2

and/or rulings”: (1) characterizing Plaintiff’s leave as working from 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. each

3

day, rather than “as the mornings off work (until noon)”; (2) mischaracterizing Plaintiff’s

4

argument that “Defendants had a duty to offer additional FMLA leave”; (3) mischaracterizing

5

Plaintiff’s argument “that requiring Plaintiff to report to Marysville by 12:30 constituted

6

interference”; (4) denying Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion as a result of the errors above;

7

and (5) granting in part Defendants’ summary judgment motion as a result of the errors above.

8

Dkt. No. 90 at 4-7. In short, rather than demonstrate a “manifest failure” on the Court’s part to

9

“consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments,” Plaintiff simply takes issue with the
Court’s characterization of her argument—a characterization which was based on the facts

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

presented by the parties. A motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle by which to

12

relitigate arguments made at summary judgment.

13

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: 12/13/2017

16
17
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2