Mehmet v. Paypal, Inc.

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge Ronald M. Whyte denying 33 Motion for Leave to File; denying 29 Motion for Reconsideration. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff B. David Mehmet sued the defendant, Paypal, Inc., on April 14, 2008. On May 27, 2008, Mr. Mehmet moved for summary judgment on two of his claims. The court denied the motion pursuant to Rule 56(f) on August 12, 2008. See Docket No. 26, Mehmet v. Paypal, Inc., 2008 WL 3495541 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2008). The court noted that where "a summary judgment motion is filed so early in the litigation, before a party has had any realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating to its theory of the case, district courts should grant any Rule 56(f) motion [for a continuance] fairly freely." Id. at *5 (quoting Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773 (9th Cir.2003)). Mr. Mehmet now moves for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for summary judgment.1 v. PAYPAL, INC., Defendant. B. DAVID MEHMET, Plaintiff, No. C-08-01961 RMW ORDER DENYING MEHMET'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [Re Docket No. 33] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION E-FILED on: 9/22/2008

1

"No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion." Civ. L. R. 7-9(a). The court construes Mr. Mehmet's motion as a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
ORDER DENYING MEHMET'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- No. C-08-01961 RMW TSF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A party moving for reconsideration must show that (1) the party was diligent in presenting the law or facts but presented the wrong law or facts at the hearing, (2) the law or facts have changed significantly, or (3) the court made a manifest failure in considering the law or facts presented. Civ. L. R. 7-9(b). Mr. Mehmet fails to establish any of these factors, generally reiterating that his version of events is true and that no discovery could establish otherwise (or establish a defense to his claim). In denying Mr. Mehmet's motion for summary judgment, the court only held that Paypal is entitled to the opportunity to conduct discovery to defend against Mr. Mehmet's claims. The court did not manifestly err in reaching this conclusion. Accordingly, the court denies Mr. Mehmet's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.

DATED:

9/22/2008

RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MEHMET'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- No. C-08-01961 RMW TSF 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Defendants: Oleg Cross [e-mail]

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Notice of this document has been mailed to: Plaintiff: B. David Mehmet 130 Church Street New York, NY 10007

Dated:

9/22/2008

TSF Chambers of Judge Whyte

ORDER DENYING MEHMET'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION -- No. C-08-01961 RMW TSF 3