Warner v. CMG Mortgage Inc et al

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-01835

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying {{82}} Motion for Reconsideration

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JACQUELINE A. WARNER, 7 Case No. 15-cv-01835-YGR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 RECONSIDERATION CMG MORTGAGE INC, ET AL., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 82 Defendants. 11 12 On November 24, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss pro se plaintiff Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Jacqueline Warner's claims without leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 80.) On December 2, 2015, prior 14 to the entry of judgment, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the November 24, 2015 15 Order. (Dkt. No. 82.) 16 This Court's Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) requires a party seeking reconsideration of an order to 17 "specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion and one of the following": 18 (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 19 entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence 20 the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or 21 (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law 22 occurring after the time of such order; or 23 (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court 24 before such interlocutory order. 25 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 26 Plaintiff's failure to file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is grounds 27 for denying the motion. See Phase Forward Inc. v. Adams, No. 05-CV-4232-JF, 2007 WL 28 2471486, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2007) (finding a party's "request for reconsideration is 1 procedurally deficient because [the party] did not first seek leave to file the request as required by 2 Local Rule 7-9(a)"). Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court construes the 3 motion as one for leave. None of the three grounds warranting leave to file a motion for 4 reconsideration are satisfied. Plaintiff has identified no new law or facts. To the extent any of the 5 authority cited by plaintiff was not included in her numerous prior filings, she has not 6 demonstrated reasonable diligence justifying her failure to timely present those authorities. 7 Finally, to the extent they are intelligible, the Court previously considered and properly rejected 8 plaintiff's repeated arguments. Plaintiff has also failed to establish any of the grounds for relief 9 enumerated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). As such, the motion is DENIED. 10 This Order terminates Docket Number 82. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: January 6, 2016 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2