Xianhua v. Oath Holdings, Inc. f/k/a/Yahoo! Inc., et al

Filing 91

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 89 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2023)

Case 4:20-cv-06185-HSG Document 91 Filed 10/13/23 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NING XIANHUA,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

OATH HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 89

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 20-cv-06185-HSG

12
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Ning Xianhua’s motion for leave to file a motion for

13
14

reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and Civil L.R. 7-9. Dkt. No. 89.

15

Plaintiff requests that the Court reconsider its order denying Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the case,

16

Dkt. No. 88, based on newly discovered evidence and a change in law. See Dkt. No. 89; Fed. R.

17

Civ. P. 60(b)(2). The Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument

18

and the matter is deemed submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).

19

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion in detail, the Court finds that he offers no newly

20

discovered evidence or change in law warranting reconsideration. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b) (requiring

21

“reasonable diligence” in bringing the motion and a showing that “a material difference in fact or

22

law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for

23

which reconsideration is sought”). Rather, Plaintiff repeats arguments that he raised in his prior

24

motion and that the Court already rejected. See Civil L.R. 7-9(c) (“No motion for leave to file a

25

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

26

support of . . . the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.”).

27

//

28

//

Case 4:20-cv-06185-HSG Document 91 Filed 10/13/23 Page 2 of 2

1

In short, there is no basis for reconsideration, and the motion is DENIED.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated:

10/13/2023
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

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