UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
May 20, 2011
CITY OF PALO ALTO, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY;
LYNNE JOHNSON, AN INDIVIDUAL; CHIEF DENNIS BURNS, AN INDIVIDUAL; OFFICER KELLY BURGER, AN INDIVIDUAL; OFFICER MANUEL TEMORES, AN INDIVIDUAL; OFFICER APRIL WAGNER, AN INDIVIDUAL; AGENT DAN RYAN; SERGEANT NATASHA POWERS, INDIVIDUAL,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
Plaintiff has filed a request for clarification of portions of the
Court's May 11, 2011 order
granting in part and denying in part Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiff's filing 22 essentially asks the Court to
reconsider several determinations made in the May 11, 2011 order. 23
Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff's request as a motion for leave to file a motion for 24 reconsideration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9, which governs requests for reconsideration of 25 interlocutory orders. 26
Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides that on a motion for leave to file a
The moving party must specifically show:
(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 dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.
The Court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's request and his objections to the Court's order. However, Plaintiff has not pointed to material facts in the record or legal arguments previously 10 presented that the Court failed to consider or which would change the Court's analysis. Nor has Plaintiff raised new arguments which, through reasonable diligence, could not have been presented earlier. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request. 13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.