Sienze v. Moore

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 8, 2024
• Docket: 4:19-cv-04279
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 VICTOR M. SIENZE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04279-JSW

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 11 v. REVERSE DECISIONS AND ENTERING JUDGMENT 12 COUNTY OF LAKE, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 144, 146 Defendants. 13

14 15 Pursuant to this Court’s order dated January 9, 2024, granting Defendant Moore’s motion 16 for summary judgment, the parties have submitted a joint case management statement indicating 17 that the case is effectively over and judgment should be entered. (Dkt. No. 144, Joint Statement at 18 3:13-14.) The Court agrees and shall enter judgment separately. 19 However, it appears that Victor Sienze. Sr., the first-named plaintiff in this case and the 20 father of the deceased, disagrees with Dan Moseley, his former counsel’s opinion as well as 21 counsel’s decision to file a statement of non-opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 22 (Dkt. No. 139.) The Court has reviewed in detail all of Mr. Sienze’s submissions and arguments. 23 (Dkt. Nos. 141, 142, 146, 147.) The Court GRANTS Mr. Sienze’s request to appear pro se and 24 GRANTS Mr. Moseley’s request to withdraw. (Dkt. Nos. 142, 143.) The Court interprets Mr. 25 Sienze’s request to reverse the Court’s decision as a motion for reconsideration. 26 Under Local Rule 7-9(b), reconsideration may be sought only if one of the following 27 circumstances exists: (1) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court prior 1 or a change of law occurring after issuance of such order; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to 2 || consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented to the Court before 3 issuance of such order. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-@). In addition, a party seeking leave to file a 4 || motion for reconsideration may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the 5 Court. N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c); see also United States v. Hector, 368 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1063 (C.D. 6 || Cal. 2005), rev'd on other grounds, 474 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2007) (“A motion for reconsideration 7 is not to be used as a means to reargue a case or to ask a court to rethink a decision it has made.”). 8 First, a motion for reconsideration can only be brought “[b]efore entry of a judgment 9 adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and liabilities of all of the parties in a case.” N.D. Civ. 10 || L.R. 7-9(a). The Court’s order granting summary judgment did adjudicate all of the claims, rights, and 11 liabilities of all the parties in this matter. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration is procedurally 12 improper. However, the Court has reviewed the substance of Plaintiff’s motion and all of his 13 submissions and the Court finds that it did not fail to consider facts or dispositive legal arguments 14 || originally presented to the Court in the parties’ briefing on summary judgment. The arguments in the 15 motion for reconsideration were formerly presented to the Court and thoroughly considered. Further, 16 although the Court has reviewed all of the submissions made by Mr. Sienze, the Court concludes that 3 17 there has been no new material facts introduced or change in law which has occurred after issuance of S 18 the order that mandate reconsideration of the Court’s decision. Accordingly, the Court DENIES 19 Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and declines to reverse its decision granting summary judgment. 20 Accordingly, a separate judgment shall issue and the Clerk is instructed to close the case. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. ~) / 23 || Dated: February 8, 2024 \ Je thu , Ka 24 effigy WE i S: WKATE 25 | United States District Judge 26 27 28