United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING HERE NORTH AMERICA'S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge.
HERE North America, LLC (“HERE”) moves for leave
to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying its
motion for summary judgment. Because it is based on a flawed
interpretation of the Court's order, the motion is
January 29, 2018, the Court issued an order denying
HERE's motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff
Lamar Barbara's claims in connection with the termination
of his employment at HERE. The order concludes that
Barbara's allegations of racial animus on the part of his
direct supervisor, Cyrus McGuire, were sufficient to raise a
material issue of fact as to whether HERE's proffered
nondiscriminatory reasons for Barbara's termination were
in fact a pretext for discrimination. Accordingly, HERE's
motion for summary judgment was denied as to Barbara's
discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination claims.
On February 21, 2018, HERE filed a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's summary
seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration must 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.
Civ. Local R. 7-9(b). “No motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written
argument made by the applying party in support of or in
opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now
seeks to have reconsidered.” Civ. Local R. 7-9(c).
“Any party who violates this restriction shall be
subject to appropriate sanctions.” Id.
proposed basis for reconsideration is that the order applies
a mixed-motives analysis and manifestly failed to consider
the parties' arguments that the McDonnell
Douglas framework applied instead. This is an incorrect
characterization of the Court's reasoning.
to HERE, “the Court concluded that a jury could not
rationally find HERE's reason for layoff was false, but
that a triable issue remained as to whether the reason
proffered was pretextual given that race might also have
played a role.” Mot. for Leave for Reconsideration at
2. Had this been an accurate interpretation of the
Court's order, it would indeed have reflected an
application of mixed-motive rather than burden-shifting
analysis. Upon closer scrutiny, however, it is clear ...