Aquino v. County of Monterey Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 265

ORDER DENYING 207 DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 8/12/2018. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/12/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

NICOLAS AQUINO,

Case No. 5:14-cv-03387-EJD

Plaintiff,
9

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

COUNTY OF MONTEREY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

12

Re: Dkt. No. 207

Defendants.

13

Presently before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of an in limine ruling

14

(Dkt. No. 207), which the court previously granted leave to file. Dkt. No. 211. Having carefully

15

considered the parties’ arguments in conjunction with record, the court finds, concludes and orders

16

as follows:

17

1.

Upon closer inspection, Defendants have not satisfied the standard for

18

reconsideration detailed in Civil Local Rule 7-9. Defendants’ request is based on Rule 7-9(b)(1),

19

which requires them to show, inter alia, a material difference in fact or law than was presented to

20

the court in issuing the order for which reconsideration is sought.

21

2.

Defendants have not shown a material difference in fact or law. As Defendants

22

motion confirms, there are no new facts and there is no new law; if anything, Defendants seek a

23

change to the legal effect of the facts, or to present new legal argument based on unchanged facts.

24

These reasons do not justify reconsideration, however, because nothing prevented Defendants

25

from previously arguing the wallet search was actually a seizure, even if Plaintiff argued

26

something different. Indeed, “[i]t is not the purpose of allowing motions for reconsideration to

27

enable a party to complete presenting his case after the court has ruled against him.” Frietsch v.

28

Case No.: 5:14-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
1

1

Refco, Inc., 56 F.3d 825, 828 (7th Cir. 1995). “Leave to file for reconsideration will not be

2

granted merely because a party regrets its choices in prior briefing.” Earll v. eBay Inc., No. 5:11-

3

cv-00262-EJD, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134965, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2012).

4

3.

Moreover, the court simply cannot reconsider the “clearly established” prong of

5

qualified immunity with respect to the search of Plaintiff’s wallet under Rule 7-9 or Federal Rules

6

of Civil Procedure 54 or 60. Defendants argued in their interlocutory appeal from the summary

7

judgment order that Deputy Rodriguez was entitled to qualified immunity for the search of

8

Plaintiff’s wallet, citing many of the same cases they now cite in the instant motion. The Ninth

9

Circuit disagreed with Defendants, necessarily deciding that the law was clearly established. That
decision is now law of the case, and Defendants have not demonstrated an exception to that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

doctrine should apply. Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 12 F.3d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 1993) (“The

12

law of the case doctrine states that the decision of an appellate court on a legal issue must be

13

followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same case.”).

14

For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No. 207) is DENIED.

15
16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 12, 2018
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:14-cv-03387-EJD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
2