City Of San Jose v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 158

ORDER DENYING 157 PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 12/20/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/20/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9
10

CITY OF SAN JOSE,

Case No. 5:15-cv-03178-EJD

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

v.
12
13

MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 157

Defendants.
14
15
16

CITY OF OAKLAND,
Plaintiff,

17

Case No. 5:15-cv-05152-EJD
Re: Dkt. No. 127

v.
18
19

MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

20
21

CITY OF BERKELEY,

22

Plaintiff,

23
24
25

Case No. 5:16-cv-00071-EJD
Re: Dkt. No. 120

v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.

26
27
28

1
Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

1

The Court previously ordered that the Cities’ three related federal actions in the Northern

2

District of California must be stayed while the Cities’ administrative actions are pending. Order

3

Granting Defs.’ Mot. to Stay (“Stay Order”) 2–4, Case No. 15-cv-3178, Dkt. No. 144. The Cities

4

moved for certification of that order for interlocutory appeal, which the Court denied. Case No.

5

15-cv-3178, Dkt. No. 156.

6

The Cities now move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Stay Order. Case

7

No. 15-cv-3178, Dkt. No. 157. The Cities argue that this Court should reconsider its decision

8

because the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California recently determined that a

9

similar claim by City of San Diego could proceed against Monsanto, despite the fact that San
Diego was simultaneously pursuing a test claim before the California Commission on State

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Mandates. Id. at 2–3; see also City of San Diego v. Monsanto, Case No. 3:15-cv-00578-WQH-

12

AGS, Dkt. No. 163 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2017). According to the Cities, the San Diego order

13

“constitutes a material change in law that did not exist at the time of this Court’s Stay Order.”

14

Case No. 15-cv-3178, Dkt. No. 157 at 3.

15

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states: “Before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the

16

claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case, any party may make a motion before

17

a Judge requesting that the Judge grant the party leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any

18

interlocutory order. . . . No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining

19

leave of Court to file the motion.” Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides three grounds for

20

reconsideration of an interlocutory order:

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
2
Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

1
2

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court
before such interlocutory order.
Rule 7-9(c) further requires that “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

3

may repeat any oral or written argument made by the ap15-5836

4

opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Whether to

5

grant leave to file under Rule 7-9 is committed to the Court’s sound discretion. See Montebueno

6

Mktg., Inc. v. Del Monte Corp.—USA, 570 F. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014).

7

plying party in support of or in

The Court has reviewed the Cities’ arguments in its motion for leave to file a motion for

8

reconsideration. The Court has also reviewed the San Diego court’s order. The Court is not

9

persuaded that the San Diego order presents a material change in law that warrants reconsideration
of this Court’s Stay Order. Accordingly, the Cities’ motion for leave to file a motion for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

reconsideration is DENIED.

12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
Case No.: 5:15-cv-03178-EJD
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION