Dillon v. Murphy & Hourihane

Filing 31

ORDER re: briefing on whether the Court should reconsider its July 3, 2014 Order. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/19/2014. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

THOMAS A. DILLON,

Case No. 14-cv-01908-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

MURPHY & HOURIHANE,

ORDER RE: BRIEFING ON WHETHER
THE COURT SHOULD RECONSIDER
ITS JULY 3, 2014 ORDER

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On July 3, 2014, the Court issued an Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for

14

lack of personal jurisdiction, and further denying Defendant’s Motion to Transfer. (ECF 27) On

15

July 30, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), requesting the Court

16

amend its Order to permit Defendant to seek interlocutory review, in light of the Supreme Court’s

17

decision in Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014).

18

In its Motion, Defendant notes that it did not file a Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to

19

Civil Local Rule 7-9, due to the threat of sanctions on parties who file a motion based on

20

arguments made in briefing or oral argument. (ECF 27 at 12 n.2 (stating that it did not file a

21

Motion for Reconsideration because Defendant mentioned Walden v. Fiore at oral argument)) The

22

Court notes that Walden, decided prior to its Order, was not addressed in its Order, nor was it

23

included in the briefing on Defendant’s Motion.

24

The Court hereby ORDERS that the parties provide supplemental briefing – not to exceed

25

5 (five) pages per side – addressing the question of whether the Court should reconsider its Order

26

in light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Walden. Defendant’s brief shall be due to the Court no

27

more than 10 (ten) days from the issue of this Order. Plaintiff’s supplemental brief shall be due on

28

the same date as its Response to Defendant’s Motion to Amend, September 19, 2014.

1

At the upcoming oral argument on Defendant’s Motion, scheduled for October 16, 2014,

2

the Court shall hear argument on whether it should reconsider its prior order and as to whether the

3

Court should permit interlocutory review of its Order.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 19, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2