Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al
Filing
716
ORDER Denying Leave to File Motions for Reconsideration by Judge Ronald M. Whyte (denying 581 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 582 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 583 Motion for Reconsideration). (rmwlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
9
10
ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,
Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW
Plaintiffs,
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
v.
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE
MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
12
13
L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 581, 582, 583
Defendants.
14
Before the court are three motions for leave to file motions for reconsideration filed by pro
15
16
se plaintiffs Roda and Adil Hiramanek:
1. Adil Hiramanek’s “Motion for Leave of Court to Revise its Order #546,
[FRCP 54(b), Civil L.R. 7-9] and FRCP Rule 46 Objections” Dkt. No.
581;
2. Roda Hiramanek’s “Motion for Leave of Court to Revise its Order
#546, [FRCP 54(b), Civil L.R. 7-9] and FRCP Rule 46 Objections” Dkt.
No. 582;
3. Roda and Adil Hiramanek’s “Motion for Leave of Court to Revise its
Orders #570, [FRCP 54(b), Civil L.R. 7-9] and FRCP Rule 46
Objections” Dkt. No. 583.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Having reviewed the motions and the relevant standards for reconsideration under Civil Local
23
Rule 7-9 and School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir.
24
1993), the court DENIES plaintiffs’ motions.
25
I.
26
27
28
BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2016, this court denied plaintiffs’ unauthorized 50-page motion for
reconsideration of the court’s February 19, 2016 summary judgment order. Dkt. No. 571 (denying
1
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
the motion at Dkt. No. 559, among other motions). The court noted “plaintiffs’ continued failure
2
to comply with local rules regarding page limits.” Id. at 2. The court also cited Swanson v. U.S.
3
Forest Serv., 87 F.3d 339, 345 (9th Cir.1996) for the proposition that “the incorporation of
4
substantive material by reference is not sanctioned by the federal rules” as a mechanism for
5
circumventing page limits. Id. at 3. Given plaintiffs’ repeated failure to comply with the local rules
6
and orders of this court, the court could have denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration with
7
prejudice and refused to consider its merits.
Instead, on April 1, 2016, this court responded to plaintiffs’ request for clarification by
8
9
stating:
Any party who wishes to seek reconsideration of this court’s orders
granting summary judgment in favor of the Superior Court may file
a motion for leave pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9 by April 12,
2016. Each motion for leave must not exceed five double-spaced
pages and must not include any footnotes or attachments.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
Dkt. No. 575 at 2. Plaintiffs filed the instant motions on April 12, 2016. Dkt. Nos. 581-583.
14
II.
15
DEFICIENCIES AFFECTING ALL THREE MOTIONS
Once again, plaintiffs have failed to comply with this court’s orders regarding page limits.
16
All three of the motions presently before the court violate this court’s March 29, 2016 and April 1,
17
2016 orders on page limits by attempting to incorporate material from other papers by reference.
18
See, e.g., Dkt. No. 581 at 4 (containing 10 separate citations on a single page to Dkt. No. 559—the
19
50-page reconsideration motion that this court denied—or its attachments); Dkt. No. 582 at 5
20
(containing 18 citations on a single page to Dkt. No. 559 or its attachments); Dkt. No. 583 at 1
21
(containing 2 citations on a single page to Dkt. No. 559). As other courts have noted, “it is
22
typically the shorter briefs that are the most helpful, perhaps because the discipline of compression
23
forces the parties to explain clearly and succinctly what has happened, the precise legal issue, and
24
just why they believe the law supports them.” Elec. Frontier Found. v. C.I.A., No. C 09-03351
25
SBA, 2012 WL 1123529, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2012) (quoting In re M.S.V., Inc., 892 F.2d 5, 6
26
(1st Cir. 1989)). “Overly long briefs, however, may actually hurt a party’s case, making it far more
27
likely that meritorious arguments will be lost amid the mass of detail.” Fleming v. County of Kane,
28
2
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
State of Ill., 855 F.2d 496 (7th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Plaintiffs would do well to heed these
2
warnings. Because plaintiffs have again failed to comply with applicable page limits, the court
3
need not consider the merits of plaintiffs’ arguments.
Moreover, plaintiffs’ motions fail to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), which states, in
4
5
relevant part:
6
A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration must be
made in accordance with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-9. The
moving party must specifically show reasonable diligence in
bringing the motion and one of the following:
(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.
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). It does not appear that plaintiffs have attempted to identify newly discovered
15
evidence or legal authority and then explain why such evidence or legal authority could not have
16
been presented earlier. Plaintiffs assert—often with little or no analysis—that the court’s summary
17
judgment orders err in various ways. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 581 at 4 (“Order, 17:19-22 errs that
18
wheelchair would suffice.”). However, plaintiffs do not explain why these alleged errors constitute
19
a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were
20
previously presented to the court. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), the court finds that
21
plaintiffs have not provided sufficient justification for leave to file motions for reconsideration.1
22
While the court need not reach the merits of plaintiffs’ motions for the reasons listed
23
above, the court finds it appropriate to clarify certain points regarding its summary judgment
24
orders.
25
26
27
28
1
The court also notes that in some instances, plaintiffs have simply repeated arguments they made
in earlier briefing, in violation of Civil Local Rule 7-9(c). For an example, compare Dkt. No. 582
at 3 (“100% hearings, are pre trial hearings only. Order errs in ruling otherwise.”) with Dkt. No.
450 at 2 (“Pltf.s’ ADA request sought telephone appearance for pre-trial, routine court hearings.”).
3
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
III.
FEBRUARY 19, 2016 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (DKT. NO. 546)
A.
2
Waiver
This court’s February 19, 2016 summary judgment order noted that while the operative
3
complaint describes twelve denials of requests for various accommodations under the Americans
4
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), plaintiffs clarified in their summary judgment papers and at the
5
summary judgment hearing that they are only pursuing claims for two types of denials: requests
6
for telephonic appearances and electronic filing. Dkt. No. 546 at 3. In their motions for leave,
7
plaintiffs assert that their ADA requests were not limited to requests for telephonic appearances
8
and electronic filing but also included requests such as language translation. See Dkt. No. 581 at 1;
9
Dkt. No. 582 at 1. Plaintiffs assert that they did not waive the right to seek relief for the denial of
10
other types of accommodations.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
Plaintiffs’ arguments are unpersuasive. While the court’s summary judgment order noted
that plaintiffs’ own briefing limited the scope of their ADA claims to requests for telephonic
13
accommodations and electronic filing, see Dkt. No. 436 at 16-17, the court did not have to rely on
14
waiver to determine that summary judgment was appropriate. The Superior Court moved for
15
summary judgment on all of the claims in Count II-A of plaintiffs’ complaint. Dkt. No. 435 at 18.
16
Plaintiffs had the burden to support their ADA claims with evidence and argument. With one
17
exception, the only claims they chose to pursue in their opposition papers related to telephonic
18
appearances and electronic filing.2 See Dkt. No. 450. The court found that plaintiffs failed to meet
19
their burden of proof, and plaintiffs have provided no reason for the court to depart from that
20
ruling.
21
B.
22
Grounds for Summary Judgment
Mr. Hiramanek asserts that this court erred by granting summary judgment in part on the
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Under the heading of telephonic appearances, plaintiffs’ summary judgment opposition brief
suggested that Mr. Hiramanek should have been allowed to interpret for Ms. Hiramanek. Dkt. No.
450 at 22. While this court’s summary judgment order did not directly address that point, inability
to understand the English language is not considered a disability under the ADA. See 28 C.F.R. Pt.
35, App. B (“Physical or mental impairment does not include . . . cultural, economic, or other
disadvantages, such as having a prison record, or being poor. Nor is age a disability.”) (emphasis
added).
4
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
basis that the Superior Court provided reasonable accommodations to plaintiffs for their requests.
2
Plaintiff asserts that defendant did not raise this argument until the Superior Court filed its
3
opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 581 at 1; Dkt. No. 546 at 7;
4
Dkt. No. 448 at 8-9. Plaintiff’s argument for reconsideration is unpersuasive. This court’s
5
summary judgment order applied the legal standard articulated in Memmer v. Marin Cty. Courts,
6
169 F.3d 630, 633-34 (9th Cir. 1999) and Duvall v. Cty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1137 (9th Cir.
7
2001) (noting that it is plaintiff’s initial burden to “show that the accommodations offered by the
8
[defendant] were not reasonable”). Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment—filed the same day
9
as the Superior Court’s motion for summary judgment—cited Duvall seven times, sometimes
more than once on a page. See Dkt. No. 436 at 7, 14-16. Thus, plaintiffs have no basis to suggest
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
that they lacked notice of their burden to show that the accommodations offered by the Superior
12
Court were unreasonable.
13
The Ninth Circuit has held that “[e]ven when there has been no cross-motion for summary
14
judgment, a district court may enter summary judgment sua sponte against a moving party if the
15
losing party has had a ‘full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues involved in the matter.’”
16
Gospel Missions of America v. City of Los Angeles, 328 F.3d 548, 553 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting
17
Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett, 685 F.2d 309, 312 (9th Cir. 1982)). In the instant case, plaintiffs had
18
even more notice than that afforded to the Gospel Missions plaintiff. Plaintiffs were on notice of
19
their burden of proof, as described in Duvall, when they filed their motion for summary judgment,
20
and, to the extent that they disagreed with the Superior Court’s arguments, they had the
21
opportunity to respond in their reply brief and at the summary judgment hearing.
22
Even if this court were to find that plaintiffs were entitled to an additional opportunity to
23
be heard before the court granted summary judgment, plaintiffs have failed to show how an
24
additional hearing would have resulted in a different outcome. Plaintiffs’ reconsideration motions
25
fail to distinguish Duvall and Memmer from the instant case or present any contrary controlling
26
authority. Accordingly, plaintiffs have presented no reason for this court to allow for additional
27
briefing.
28
5
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
1
IV.
MARCH 29, 2016 SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER (DKT. NO. 570)
Plaintiffs claim that newly discovered evidence suggests that, contrary to this court’s
2
finding, Ms. Hiramanek did request a telephonic appearance as an ADA accommodation for the
3
July 2, 2013 hearing discussed in this court’s March 29, 2016 summary judgment order. See Dkt.
4
No. 583 at 2; Dkt. No. 570 at 3. In support of their argument, plaintiffs rely on an unauthenticated
5
ADA request form that Mr. Hiramanek claims he discovered in mid-December 2015. See Dkt. No.
6
576 at 2.
7
Plaintiffs have not presented a sufficient basis for this court to reconsider its prior ruling.
8
Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(2) requires a party seeking reconsideration to show that “in the exercise of
9
reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the
10
time of the interlocutory order.” Plaintiffs have not explained why they could not have located and
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
submitted the ADA request form in question before their supplemental summary judgment brief
12
was due on February 24, 2016. The court also notes that plaintiffs objected to summary judgment
13
evidence that the Superior Court offered on the grounds that the Superior Court did not submit that
14
evidence during discovery. See Dkt. No. 558. Even if the court were to consider the ADA request
15
16
form, it would not change the court’s ruling because, among other things, Ms. Hiramanek has
submitted no evidence that she provided notice that she planned to contest the Superior Court’s
17
tentative ruling by 4:00 pm the day before the hearing as required by California Rule of Court
18
3.1308(a)(1).
19
20
V.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file motions for
21
reconsideration are DENIED.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated: September 12, 2016
24
25
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge
26
27
28
6
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?