Nagahi v. California Employment Development Department et al

Filing 163

ORDER by Judge Patricia V. Trumbull Denying 160 Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Entered Against Plaintiff's State Law Claims. (pvtlc1) (Filed on 7/1/2010)

Nagahi v. California Employment Development Department et al

Doc. 163

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after OR D E R, page 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

REZA NAGAHI,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT ) DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

Case No.: C 07-6268 PVT ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FO R LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR REC O N SID ER A TION OF SUMMARY JU D G M E N T ENTERED AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S ST A T E LAW CLAIMS

On June 24, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Request for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration of Summary Judgment Entered Against Plaintiff's State Law Claims. Having reviewed the papers submitted by the parties, the court finds it appropriate to issue this order without further briefing or oral argument. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. Plaintiff fails to show that leave to file a motion for reconsideration is warranted under Civil Local Rule 7-9, which requires the moving party to show: "(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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "(3)

the time of such order; or A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order." See CIVIL L.R. 7-9(b).

Plaintiff has not shown that any of the foregoing circumstances apply. He bases his request on a claim that he was excused from complying with the claim presentation requirement of the California Tort Claims Act. While this would be a "material difference in fact" from that which was presented to the court before entry of its summary judgment order, Plaintiff has not asserted, much less shown, that he did not know that purported fact before the summary judgment order was entered. Nor has Plaintiff shown the emergence of any new material facts or changes of law occurring after the time of the order, nor a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were before the court. Thus, leave to file a motion for reconsideration is not warranted under Civil Local Rule 7-9. Moreover, it appears Plaintiff's anticipated motion for reconsideration lacks merit. Plaintiff essentially argues he was excused from the claim presentation requirement because Defendants "never intended to investigate or settle Plaintiff's claims." However, the Tort Claims Act required Plaintiff to present his state law tort claims not to the Defendants, but to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. See, CAL.GOV'T.CODE 905.2. Plaintiff has not suggested there is any reason to believe that presentation of his claims to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board would have been futile. And even if Plaintiff could show claim presentation would have been futile, Plaintiff cites no case, and the court has found none, where futility excused noncompliance with the claim presentation requirement. Plaintiff reminds the court of its policy of resolving cases on their merits rather than technicalities when reasonably possible.1 However, California's claim presentation requirement is not merely a procedural "technicality." It is a substantive element of any tort cause of action against the state. See State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1240-44 (2004). The intent of the

Plaintiff also points out that failure to allege compliance with the claims presentation requirement does not divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction, citing State v. Superior Court (Bodde), 32 Cal.4th 1234, 1239 n.7 (2004). However, in the footnote cited, the court was merely explaining why it found dismissal for failure to state a claim appropriate rather than dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. OR D E R, page 2

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Tort Claims Act is to "confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances: immunity is waived only if the various requirements of the act are satisfied." See Williams v. Horvath, 16 Cal.3d 834, 838 (1976). Plaintiff's failure to either comply with the claim presentation requirement, or establish a legally cognizable excuse for noncompliance, takes his claims outside of the scope of California's waiver of sovereign immunity. Thus, summary judgment in favor of the state Defendants on Plaintiff's state law tort claims was warranted. Dated: 7/1/10 PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL United States Magistrate Judge

OR D E R, page 3