Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC

N.D. California

Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC

District Court, N.D. California·Decided September 11, 2019·No. 4:18-cv-01327·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT FEAMSTER, Case No. 18-cv-01327-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION

10 GACO WESTERN, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 67 11 Defendant.

12 13 On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a motion for 14 reconsideration of the Court’s order allowing attorney Sherri L. Kelly to withdraw as Plaintiff’s 15 counsel. See Dkt. No. 67. In the July 19 order, the Court reasoned that the motion to withdraw 16 satisfied both Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and the California Rules of Professional Conduct given the 17 irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. See Dkt. No. 62 at 2–3. 18 A party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order must “show reasonable diligence 19 in bringing the motion” and—as relevant here—either that “a material difference in fact or law 20 exists from that which was presented to the Court” before the challenged order, or “[a] manifest 21 failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments” presented to it 22 before its issuance of the challenged order. Civil L.R. 7-9(b). A motion for reconsideration is not 23 a vehicle for perpetually relitigating the Court’s rulings, or a substitute for appeal. See Durkee v. 24 Ford Motor Co., No. C 14-0617 PJH, 2015 WL 1156765 (N.D. Cal. 2015) at *2 (“[M]ere 25 disagreement with a court’s order does not provide a basis for reconsideration.”); GSI Tech., Inc. 26 v. United Memories, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG, 2015 WL 4463742 (N.D. Cal. 2015) at *4 27 (stating that “reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate issues that have already been 1 Plaintiff has not presented any new and material facts or legal arguments, nor has he 2 || shown a failure on the Court’s part to consider material facts or dispositive arguments. 3 || Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 9/11/2019 ° eo S. GILLIAM, JR. / 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT FEAMSTER, Case No. 18-cv-01327-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 9 v. RECONSIDERATION

10 GACO WESTERN, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 67 11 Defendant.

12 13 On September 3, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a motion for 14 reconsideration of the Court’s order allowing attorney Sherri L. Kelly to withdraw as Plaintiff’s 15 counsel. See Dkt. No. 67. In the July 19 order, the Court reasoned that the motion to withdraw 16 satisfied both Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and the California Rules of Professional Conduct given the 17 irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. See Dkt. No. 62 at 2–3. 18 A party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order must “show reasonable diligence 19 in bringing the motion” and—as relevant here—either that “a material difference in fact or law 20 exists from that which was presented to the Court” before the challenged order, or “[a] manifest 21 failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments” presented to it 22 before its issuance of the challenged order. Civil L.R. 7-9(b). A motion for reconsideration is not 23 a vehicle for perpetually relitigating the Court’s rulings, or a substitute for appeal. See Durkee v. 24 Ford Motor Co., No. C 14-0617 PJH, 2015 WL 1156765 (N.D. Cal. 2015) at *2 (“[M]ere 25 disagreement with a court’s order does not provide a basis for reconsideration.”); GSI Tech., Inc. 26 v. United Memories, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-01081-PSG, 2015 WL 4463742 (N.D. Cal. 2015) at *4 27 (stating that “reconsideration is not an opportunity to relitigate issues that have already been 1 Plaintiff has not presented any new and material facts or legal arguments, nor has he 2 || shown a failure on the Court’s part to consider material facts or dispositive arguments. 3 || Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 9/11/2019 ° eo S. GILLIAM, JR. / 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC (Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.