Lopez v. Office of the Secretary of State et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING 13 LEAVE FOR FILING A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 6/29/2017. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8

RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ et
al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 17-cv-02886-BLF
ORDER DENYING LEAVE FOR
FILING A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
STATE, et al.,
Defendants.

13
Plaintiffs filed this suit alleging that Defendants engaged in antitrust conduct and violated
14
15
16

Plaintiffs’ civil rights. ECF 2. The Court denied Plaintiffs’ application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) and dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. ECF 12. Plaintiff Lopez has
now filed a document titled “Motion of Opposition to Order.” Mot., ECF 13. In the document,

17
Lopez invokes Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) and argues that the Court was mistaken in its order
18

dismissing the complaint (“Order”). E.g., id. at 17; Order, ECF 12.

19
Because Lopez references Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), the Court construes this document as
20
a request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7-9(a). In this
21
District, a party must seek leave of court before filing a motion for reconsideration of an
22
interlocutory order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). The party seeking leave must show reasonable diligence
23
and one of three conditions. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). The condition on which Lopez bases his motion is
24
25
26

“[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which
were presented to the Court before the interlocutory order.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(3); Mot. 17.
Here, Lopez makes several arguments in support of amending this Court’s Order, none of

27
which are availing. First, Lopez argues that his pleadings are adequate and that the Court should
28

1

weigh his factual allegations in his favor, citing Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992).

2

Mot. 11-12. However, Denton does not support the argument that this Court erred in dismissing

3

the complaint. The Court recognizes the holding in Denton that the “initial assessment of the in

4

forma pauperis plaintiff’s factual allegations must be weighted in favor of the plaintiff” and

5

“cannot serve as a factfinding process for the resolution of disputed facts.” Id. However, Denton

6

does not hold that IFP plaintiffs’ complaints, despite containing only conclusory allegations and

7

lacking in necessary factual details, need not meet the pleading standard. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

8

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (holding that a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter,

9

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”) (citation omitted). In
fact, the Denton court noted that district courts are “in the best position to determine which cases

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

fall into [the] category [of cases that are factually baseless].” 504 U.S. at 33. Aside from the lack

12

of plausible allegations, the complaint is also deficient because the Eleventh Amendment bars

13

suits against state agencies in this Court. After reviewing Lopez’s arguments and cited authorities,

14

the Court finds no error in this determination.

15

Lopez next takes issue with this Court’s ruling that the corporations cannot represent

16

themselves. Mot. 13-17. The Court also finds that Lopez’s arguments and the cited authorities are

17

inapposite to the issue at hand and fail to address precedential Ninth Circuit law barring

18

corporations from proceeding pro se. See, e.g., In re Bigelow, 179 F.3d 1164, 1165 (9th Cir.

19

1999)

20

As to Lopez’s contention that the claim presentation requirement does not apply to his

21

claims, the Court notes that compliance with state law pre-suit claims presentation would not

22

apply if the amended complaint pleads only federal claims. Mot. 18-21; see Cal. Gov’t Code §§

23

900 et seq.

24
25

Because Lopez has failed to demonstrate a manifest failure by this Court in the Order, the
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

26

The Court had previously set June 29, 2017, as the deadline for Plaintiffs to file an

27

amended complaint. The Court now extends the deadline to July 28, 2017, for Plaintiffs to file an

28

amended complaint and for Plaintiff Lopez to renew his application to proceed IFP. The
2

1

corporate Plaintiffs will still need to obtain legal representation to proceed with this suit. Failure

2

to meet the July 28, 2017 deadline to file an amended complaint or failure to cure the deficiencies

3

identified in the Order will result in a dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Likewise,

4

failure to renew the IFP application by the deadline will result in an order denying Plaintiff

5

Lopez’s application to proceed IFP with prejudice.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: June 29, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3