D'Augusta v. American Petroleum Institute

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROSEMARY D’AUGUSTA, et al., Case No. 22-cv-01979-JSW

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 123 15 Defendants.

16 17 Now before the Court for consideration is the motion for leave to file a motion for 18 reconsideration filed by Plaintiffs. The Court has considered the parties’ papers, relevant legal 19 authority, and the record in this case, and, for the reasons stated herein, the Court DENIES 20 Plaintiffs’ motion. 21 On March 16, 2023, this Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to set aside the judgment. (Dkt. 22 No. 122.) The premise of Plaintiffs’ motion was that the Court’s failure to hold a hearing and not 23 provide oral argument on Defendants’ motion to dismiss violated Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights 24 to due process. (Dkt. No. 117.) Plaintiffs now move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration 25 of that order. 26 A party may move for reconsideration on one of three grounds: (1) that at the time of the 27 motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the 1 order for which reconsideration is sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of 2 law occurring after the time of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider 3 material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such 4 || interlocutory order. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). A party may not raise arguments previously 5 || presented to the court. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). 6 Plaintiffs contend that the Court did not review or misinterpreted the Supreme Court 7 decisions regarding due process cited in Plaintiffs’ original request for oral argument. The Court 8 || has thoroughly reviewed the precedent cited by Plaintiffs, both in their original motion (Dkt. No. 9 117), as well as those same authorities cited in their motion for leave to file a motion for 10 || reconsideration (Dkt. No. 123). The Court is not persuaded that there a material difference in fact 11 or law from that which was presented to the Court or a manifest failure by the Court to consider 12 || dispositive legal arguments. The Supreme Court has clearly held, in contexts where a tribunal 13 || must resolve questions of fact and law, that “the right of oral argument as a matter of procedural 14 || due process varies from case to case.” Federal Communications Comm’n v. WJR, The Goodwill 3 15 Station, 337 U.S. 265, 276 (1949). “[T]he Constitution does not require oral argument in all cases a 16 || where only insubstantial or frivolous questions of law, or indeed even substantial ones, are raised.” 7 lua S 18 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 || Dated: May 8, 2023 f | / nt 22 \ MI Lau) x 5 ABFFREY S, WHITE 23 [ Ponitey, /States Dystrict Judge 24 ve 25 26 27 28