United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT, AND MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NON-DISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
[Docket Nos. 127, 128 and 129]
JOSEPH C. SPERO, Magistrate Judge.
On December 12, 2014, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant on Plaintiff's only remaining claim under federal law and exercised its discretion to remand the state law claims to state court. On the same day, the Court entered final judgment on Plaintiff's federal claim only. In the wake of the Court's order, Plaintiff has filed three motions challenging the dismissal of his federal claim and the remand of his state law claims. In particular, he has filed the following motions: 1) Motion for Reconsideration; 2) Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment; and 3) Motion for Relief from Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. For the reasons stated below, the motions are DENIED.
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The Court understands that Plaintiff is making the following arguments in his motions:
The Court failed to reference California Labor Code Section 201 in its summary judgment order when it described Plaintiff's state law claims and therefore, the Court should reconsider the order to prevent manifest injustice.
There were inconsistencies in a declaration submitted by Defendant in support of its summary judgment motion; although Plaintiff failed to notice the inconsistencies when he filed his opposition to the summary judgment motion, he intended to bring them to the Court's attention at a subsequent case management conference. Therefore, reconsideration is necessary to avoid manifest injustice, he asserts.
The Court should not have exercised its discretion to remand the state law claims to state court because the parties consented to magistrate jurisdiction for all purposes including trial.
Remand of the state law claims violates Plaintiff's constitutional right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment because Plaintiff demanded a jury trial in the federal case and it is possible he will not be afforded a jury trial in state court.
Remand to state court is improper because the requirements of diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 are met, even though Defendant did not remove the action to federal court on that basis.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), a party may bring a motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory order "[b]efore the entry of a judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties in a case" if the court grants leave to bring such a motion. Rule 7-9(b) provides that in a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, "the moving party must show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion, and one of the following:
(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 ...