Ciampi v City of Palo Alto, et al

Filing 162

ORDER Denying 159 Request for Clarification. Signed by Judge Koh on 5/20/2011. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

JOSEPH CIAMPI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF PALO ALTO, a government entity; )
LYNNE JOHNSON, an individual; CHIEF
)
DENNIS BURNS, an individual; OFFICER
)
KELLY BURGER, an individual; OFFICER
)
MANUEL TEMORES, an individual; OFFICER )
APRIL WAGNER, an individual; AGENT DAN )
RYAN; SERGEANT NATASHA POWERS,
)
individual,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 09-CV-02655-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION

20

Plaintiff has filed a request for clarification of portions of the Court’s May 11, 2011 order

21

granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s filing

22

essentially asks the Court to reconsider several determinations made in the May 11, 2011 order.

23

Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s request as a motion for leave to file a motion for

24

reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, which governs requests for reconsideration of

25

interlocutory orders.

26
27

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides that on a motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration:

28
1
Case No.: 09-CV-02655-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

The moving party must specifically 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
(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring
after the time of such order; or
(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive
legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory
order.
The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s request and his objections to the Court’s order.

9

However, Plaintiff has not pointed to material facts in the record or legal arguments previously

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

presented that the Court failed to consider or which would change the Court’s analysis. Nor has

11

Plaintiff raised new arguments which, through reasonable diligence, could not have been presented

12

earlier. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: May 20, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 09-CV-02655-LHK
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION