Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05756/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05756-51/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL BERNARD JOHNSON III,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-05756 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Samuel Bernard Johnson has filed a motion seeking leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of the Court’s April 15, 2010 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Admonish and for

Sanctions and Costs (“April 15 Order”) (Docket No. 419). In the motion underlying that order, plaintiff

argued that defense counsel had misrepresented to the Court that permitting plaintiff to allege new

claims based on a 2006 work-related injury at a late juncture in the case would prejudice defendant by

requiring substantial additional discovery. Plaintiff asserted that defendant had already received some

discovery related to the injury claim, and contended that counsel’s “false and misleading” representation

to the contrary had required plaintiff to expend considerable resources on this action. 

In denying the motion, the Court noted that it had already considered and rejected plaintiff’s

arguments on two previous occasions, namely in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to plead the new

injury-related claims, and in denying a motion for leave to seek reconsideration of that order. The Court

stated that the papers submitted in support of plaintiff’s sanctions motion had “not persuaded the Court

that its prior rulings were erroneous, or that defense counsel engaged in misconduct by opposing

amendment of plaintiff’s complaint on the ground the amendments he sought would prejudice the

Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI Document 427 Filed 08/04/10 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

defense. April 15 Order at *2-3. The Court further stated that “much of the expense incurred was due

to plaintiff’s own litigation strategy, including filing multiple versions of various pleadings and motions

and making repeated attempts to request reconsideration of the Court’s rulings.” Id. at *3. Finally, the

Court noted that many of plaintiff’s citations to alleged misrepresentations by defense counsel were

taken from briefing submitted in plaintiff’s appeal, and held that the Court lacked the power to

admonish, sanction, or impose costs for conduct during a Ninth Circuit proceeding. Id.

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the April 15 Order on the ground

that there was a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments

which were presented to the Court.” See Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3). Plaintiff argues that the Court failed to

consider: (1) plaintiff’s argument that the Court should not decide his motion for sanctions based on its

prior rulings; (2) evidence showing “the extensive amount of discovery that was conducted by Chevron

on plaintiff’s ADA and CFEHA work related injury claims”; and (3) evidence showing that “Chevron’s

misconduct and unethical behavior occurred while Chevron was practicing before the district court and

not the appellate court.”

In ruling on plaintiff’s sanctions motion, the Court did not fail to consider any of plaintiff’s

arguments or evidence. The Court continues to believe, however, that these arguments and evidence

do not justify admonishing defense counsel or imposing sanctions and costs. Even if plaintiff is correct

that defendant had some injury-related discovery documents in its possession, defense counsel’s

representation that substantial additional discovery would be required if plaintiff were permitted to

amend his complaint was not, as plaintiff claims, misleading, frivolous, or unethical. Plaintiff has

pointed to no argument or evidence that compels a contrary conclusion.

In sum, plaintiff has not persuaded the Court that reconsideration of its April 15 Order is

warranted, and his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. (Docket No. 423).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-05756-SI Document 427 Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 2