Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02073/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02073-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID WELLS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA

STATE UNIVERSITY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-2073 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR LEAVE

TO FILE MOTION

FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff David Wells requests leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of a portion of the Court's September 7, 2006 Order

Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in Part and

Denying It in Part. Specifically, he asks the Court to reconsider

its conclusion on page 15 of its order: "Plaintiff acknowledges

that he raised his Title IX concerns from 1999 to early 2002. 

Therefore, any adverse action in 2004 is too attenuated. He did

not bring this suit until May 20, 2005."

Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states as follows: "No party may

notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave

Case 4:05-cv-02073-CW Document 104 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

of Court to file the motion." A motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration may only be granted if the moving party shows: 

(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 entry of the interlocutory order for which

reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in

the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for

reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of

the interlocutory order; or (2) The emergence of new material

facts or change of law occurring after the time of such order;

or (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material

facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to

the Court before such interlocutory order.

Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

Plaintiff states that he brings his motion under Civil Local

Rule 7-9(b)(3). But he fails to show that the Court manifestly

failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.

Having considered Plaintiff's papers, the Court finds that

good cause does not exist to grant Plaintiff leave to seek

reconsideration of a 

portion of the Court's order. Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for

Leave (Docket No. 74) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/27/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02073-CW Document 104 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2