Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The court held that Plaintiffs did not establish any of the grounds for reconsideration under Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 7-9 concerning the court’s prior order staying proceedings pending resolution of a state court case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiffs established a ground under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the order staying proceedings.
Holdings
- Plaintiffs failed to establish any of the grounds required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) for reconsideration, so their motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration was denied.
Key quotations
“A party seeking reconsideration must show one of the following grounds for relief applies: (1) “a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the [challenged] order,” and the party seeking reconsideration could not, with “reasonable diligence,” have known of such fact or law at the time of the order; (2) the “emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order”; (3) a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such . . . order.”” (at 1)
Factual background
The Court had stayed the proceedings pending resolution of a state court case. Plaintiffs argued that the Court failed to consider a California Court of Appeal decision, Gordon v. Continental Cas. Co., in entering the stay order. The Court concluded that Plaintiffs had not shown any qualifying difference in fact or law, newly emerged material facts or change in law, or manifest failure to consider previously presented material facts or dispositive legal arguments.
Procedural history
The Court previously stayed the federal proceedings pending resolution of a state court case. Plaintiffs then moved for leave to seek reconsideration, arguing that the Court had failed to consider the California Court of Appeal's decision in Gordon v. Continental Cas. Co. The Court denied the motion because Plaintiffs failed to establish any ground for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b).