Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04475/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04475-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL KEATING-TRAYNOR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 DEBORAH GOLDSTEIN et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-04475 CRB

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION

FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Now pending before the Court are plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of parts of the

Court’s Memorandum and Order filed June 16, 2006 and plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary

injunction. After carefully considering the papers filed by plaintiffs and some of the

defendants, the Court finds that oral argument is unnecessary, see Local Rule 7-1(b), and

DENIES plaintiffs’ motions.

To be granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration, a plaintiff must show:

(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 shall also

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 a change of law occurring after the

time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the court to consider material facts which were

presented to the court before such interlocutory order.

Case 3:05-cv-04475-CRB Document 173 Filed 09/05/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\4475\orderrereconsideration.wpd 2

Local Rule 7-9(b)(1); see also School Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5

F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

Plaintiffs have not met any of these requirements. The only new law they cite, Sarei

v. Rio Tinto, 456 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2006), does not cause the Court to reconsider its

decision as to Ms. Keating’s ATCA claim. Plaintiff Keating’s complaint that the Court

overlooked her claim that the City and County of San Francisco continues to garnish her

social security disability checks is unpersuasive. According to the Court’s reading of the

First Amended Complaint, Keating made an “equal protection” claim regarding child support

payments paid by Keating not having been given to Keating-Traynor; the Complaint does not

make the claim asserted by Keating in her motion for reconsideration. See June 16, 2006

Memorandum and Order at 7. If Keating wishes to make such a claim in this Court, she must

file a motion for leave to amend her complaint.

For the same reason plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied. 

Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the City and County of San Francisco from attaching Ms.

Keating’s social security disability income. The Court has dismissed all claims brought by

Ms. Keating and Mr. Traynor; those claims did not include the claim upon which Ms.

Keating seeks a preliminary injunction. Again, if Ms. Keating wishes to make such a claim,

she must file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04475-CRB Document 173 Filed 09/05/06 Page 2 of 2