Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00389/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00389-14/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

ALEX LUKOVSKY, MUHAMMED KHAN,

LARRY MITCHELL, ANTONIO HUGGINS,

SAMSON ASRAT, ANATOLIY ZOLOTAREV,

YEVGENIY SKURATOVSKY, and VLADIMIR

VASILEVSKI,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL

TRANSPORTATION AGENCY, JOHN

SADORRA, RENATO SOLOMON, VERNON

CRAWLEY, MICHAEL ELLIS, PHILLIP

GINSBURG, and DORIS LANIER,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-00389 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

REQUESTING LEAVE

TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

In this employment-discrimination action, plaintiffs seek leave to file a motion to

reconsider an order issued April 24, 2006. That order denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file

a third amended complaint. Because plaintiffs have not satisfied the requirements of Local Rule

7-9, plaintiffs’ request for leave is DENIED.

To seek reconsideration of a prior ruling, a party must first obtain leave to file a motion. 

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party may seek leave to move for reconsideration of an order

issued before the entry of a judgment on all claims, if it meets the requirements outlined therein. 

This rule, however, does not allow a party simply to relitigate an issue that has already been

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 118 Filed 05/10/06 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

argued and decided. Backlund v. Barnhart, 778 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1985). Moreover,

Rule 7-9(c) expressly prohibits a party from repeating arguments. Plaintiffs have not met their

burden. Plaintiffs merely rehash arguments they made in support of their earlier motion. In

addition to what was said earlier, plaintiffs’ arguments are adequately addressed below.

First, plaintiffs argue that they did not have to meet the Rule 16 standard for their

motion for leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs contend that they are liberated from the

Rule 16 standard because the Court “told” plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend at a case

management conference on March 9, 2006. The Court was merely informing plaintiffs that if

they were going to seek leave to amend, they should act quickly. Plaintiffs had missed the

deadline for pleading amendments, thus the longer plaintiffs delayed the more likely their

motion would be denied under Rule 16. The reality is that plaintiffs’ motion papers ignored

Rule 16 altogether. That was an error of law.

Second, plaintiffs argue that the April 24 order was erroneous in finding a lack of

diligence on the part of plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel, however, has not brought forth

any newly discovered evidence to support a finding of diligence. Rather plaintiffs’ instant

request for leave merely seeks to reargue the facts. Local Rule 7-9 expressly forbids this.

Finally, plaintiffs argue that the defendants would not have been prejudiced by the

proposed amendment. Again, plaintiffs simply ignore Rule 16. The focus of the Rule 16

inquiry, as explained in the April 24 order, is on the moving party’s diligence. If there is a

determination of lack of diligence, the existence of prejudice is not required. Thus even if the

Court agreed with plaintiffs’ assessment of prejudice, which it does not, there still would be no

grounds to allow plaintiffs to file another amended complaint.

Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00389-WHA Document 118 Filed 05/10/06 Page 2 of 2