Gyorke-Takatri et al v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03702

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; DENYING MOTIONS FOR STAY, LEAVE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AND TO SHORTEN TIME AS MOOT by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying {{44}} Motion to Stay; denying {{45}} Motion to Shorten Time

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MICHELLE GYORKE-TAKATRI AND KATIE 7 SILVER, on behalf of themselves and others Case No. 15-cv-03702-YGR similarly situated, 8 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO Plaintiffs, FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION; 9 DENYING MOTIONS FOR STAY, LEAVE TO v. SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AND TO 10 SHORTEN TIME AS MOOT NESTLE USA, INC. AND GERBER PRODUCTS 11 COMPANY, Dkt. Nos. 44, 45 12 Defendants. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Presently before the Court are the Motions of Gerber Products Company ("Gerber"): (1) to 14 stay entry and effect of remand order, for leave to file motion for reconsideration, and for leave to 15 submit additional evidence (Dkt. No. 44); and (2) to shorten time on hearing for such motions 16 (Dkt. No. 45). Having considered the briefs and supporting papers, as well as Plaintiffs' 17 Opposition to the Motion to Shorten Time (Dkt. No. 47), the Court DENIES the Motions. 18 Gerber's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration does not meet the 19 requirements for reconsideration set forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). Gerber does not indicate that 20 it intends to present facts that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, it could not have presented 21 in its opposition to the remand motion (or in its Notice of Removal). Nor does Gerber show that 22 the remand order was based upon a "manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or 23 dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order." 24 Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) (emphasis supplied). 25 Gerber's arguments—that it should have been permitted to provide more or different 26 evidence, to make additional legal arguments, or to argue for exceptions to the Rules of 27 Evidence—all fail to persuade. Similarly, Gerber's contention that it was not given sufficient time 28 to marshal evidence to oppose the motion for remand or to respond to objections to its evidence 1 made in Plaintiffs' October 13, 2015 reply is not supported by the law or the facts here. The 2 motion for remand followed the normal 35-day briefing schedule and Gerber never sought 3 additional time to respond to the motion or to the reply. A motion for reconsideration is not an 4 opportunity for a disappointed party to shore up a losing position with new evidence and 5 arguments that, in hindsight, it should have marshalled in the first instance. Gerber has not shown 6 a basis for allowing a reconsideration motion. 7 Because the Court finds no basis for allowing a motion for reconsideration, the motion for 8 leave to gather and present additional factual information is DENIED AS MOOT. Likewise, since 9 Gerber's request for an order staying the remand is premised on the need for additional time 10 before filing its appeal to permit the Court to consider its motions for leave to file reconsideration 11 and to gather additional factual information, the motion for a stay is DENIED AS MOOT. 12 Finally, based on the foregoing rulings, the request to shorten time is DENIED AS MOOT. Northern District of California United States District Court 13 This Order terminates Docket Nos. 44 and 45. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: November 10, 2015 16 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2