Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01797/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01797-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

Case No.: 13-CV-01797-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JESSIE CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

PVH CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.:13-CV-01797-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 128

Before the Court is a motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration, filed by Proposed 

Intervenors Jodi Scott-George and Melissa Wiggs (“Proposed Intervenors”). ECF No. 128 

(“Motion for Leave”). Proposed Intervenors seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this 

Court’s November 20, 2014 Order denying Proposed Intevenors’ motion to intervene in the instant 

putative class action lawsuit. See ECF No. 106.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), a party may file a motion for reconsideration of any 

interlocutory order only upon obtaining leave of the Court. A party seeking reconsideration must 

show, inter alia, that (1) “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”; (2) “new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of 

such order”; or (3) a “failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments 

Case 5:13-cv-01797-LHK Document 138 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 13-CV-01797-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” Civil L. R. 7-9(b). A motion 

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may not “repeat any oral or written argument made 

by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now 

seeks to have reconsidered.” Civ. L. R. 7-9(c).

In their Motion for Reconsideration, Proposed Intervenors raise three “critical facts” that 

they claim “were not presented to this Court” in conjunction with Proposed Intervenors’ motion to 

intervene. Mot. for Leave, at 2. However, the Court finds that all three of these facts were 

presented to the Court at the time the Court denied the motion to intervene.

First, Proposed Intervenors argue that this Court was not “notified . . . of the existence of 

the Scott-George action,” id., a separate but related lawsuit to the instant litigation. Proposed 

Intervenors are incorrect. In fact, on August 18, 2014 (a day before Proposed Intervenors filed 

their motion to intervene) Proposed Intervenors filed a notice of pendency of other action with this 

Court, alerting this Court to the existence of Scott-George. See ECF No. 76. Moreover, Proposed 

Intervenors’ repeatedly referenced the Scott-George action in their motion to intervene. See, e.g., 

ECF No. 77 (“Mot. Intervene”), at 3-5 (summarizing history of Scott-George and its relation to the 

instant litigation). 

Second, Proposed Intevenors argue that “proposed class counsel did not provide this Court 

with defendant’s potential exposure for violation of Labor Code § 203” in connection with the 

preliminary approval hearing in this matter, which Proposed Intervenors argue led this Court to 

erroneously approve preliminary approval to a class action settlement. Mot. for Leave, at 2. 

However, Proposed Intervenors raised this same argument in their motion to intervene. See, e.g., 

Mot. Intervene, at 17 (“Although the § 203 claim is a central part of the Chavez action, there is no 

estimate of the exposure on this claim.”).

Third, Proposed Intervenors argue that this Court did not consider the “effect of the release 

language [in the settlement agreement in the instant litigation] on class members’ right to seek 

waiting time penalties in other claims not alleged in the Chavez case.” Mot. for Leave, at 2-3. 

Case 5:13-cv-01797-LHK Document 138 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 13-CV-01797-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Again, Proposed Intervenors raised this same argument in their motion to intervene. See, e.g., Mot. 

Intervene at 10-11 (“In this case, the settlement release is broadly written and extends to claims 

based on facts not alleged in the Chavez action.”) see also id. at 12 (“[I]t is evident that the release 

is intended to bar all § 203 claims, regardless of the facts upon which those claims are based.”). 

In sum, the “critical facts” that Proposed Intervenors argue were not presented to this Court 

were all presented and argued in Proposed Intervenors’ Motion to Intervene. Accordingly, 

Proposed Intervenors have not demonstrated that “a material difference in fact . . . exists from that 

which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order,” or that there is “a 

material difference in fact . . . from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the 

interlocutory order.” Civil L. R. 7-9(b). Proposed Intervenors’ Motion for Leave is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-01797-LHK Document 138 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 3