Steshenko v. McKay et al

Filing 730

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 708 Motion for Reconsideration (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

GREGORY NICHOLAS STESHENKO,
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

v.

9
10

Case No. 09-cv-05543-RS (JSC)

THOMAS MCKAY, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 708

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

14
15
16
17

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration
of the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw. (Dkt. No. 708.) The
Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw because of an irreparable breakdown in the attorneyclient relationship. (Dkt. No. 707.) Having carefully considered Plaintiff’s motion, the Court
concludes that Plaintiff has not identified any grounds for reconsideration and DENIES Plaintiff’s

18
motion.
19
Pursuant to Local R. 7-9(b), a motion for reconsideration is proper where a party can show
20
one of the following:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(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.

Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy any of these grounds for reconsideration. Plaintiff

1

appears to be attempting to argue that the Court manifestly failed to consider material facts or

3

legal arguments; however, the Court carefully and impartially considered counsel’s motion and

4

Plaintiff’s written opposition, as well as the statements made by counsel and Plaintiff at the

5

September 2, 2014 hearing. The new arguments raised in Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration,

6

arguments which could have been but were not made prior to the Court’s decision on the motion

7

to withdraw, are not a proper basis for a motion for reconsideration. See Christie v. Iopa, 176 F.3d

8

1231, 1239 n.5 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[W]e do not consider evidence or arguments presented for the

9

first time in a motion for reconsideration.”); In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., MDL

10

No. 1917, 2014 WL 4446294, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2014) (denying motion for reconsideration

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

where party sought “proverbial second bite at the apple in an effort to remedy error” of not

12

presenting certain facts with the underlying motion.). These new arguments also fail on the

13

merits.

14

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

15

This Order disposes of Docket No. 708.

16
17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 16, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2