Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04051/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04051-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

DORIS CROSLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

 CITY OF PITTSBURG, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04051 JSW

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE LETTER REQUEST

FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

The Court has received Plaintiffs’ letter requesting leave to file a motion for

reconsideration on the Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff Crosley’s Motion for Summary

Judgment and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment.

The form of Plaintiffs’ request is improper. In general, apart from discovery disputes,

this Court does not accept requests made by letter briefs. If either party fails to comply with

these requirements in the future, they are hereby put on notice that the Court shall disregard

any requests made by letter. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ letter does not enable the Court to make a

reasoned decision as to whether or not leave to file a motion for reconsideration should be

granted. 

Rather, Plaintiffs should have filed a motion requesting leave to file a motion for

reconsideration setting forth the authority on which they base their request for reconsideration

and which 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

Case 3:05-cv-04051-JSW Document 106 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 3
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

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 a 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.

N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 

Furthermore, “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any

oral or written argument made by the applying party in support or in opposition to the

interlocutory order for which the party now seeks to have reconsidered. Any party who violates

this restriction shall be sanctioned.” Id. 7-9(c).

Therefore, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ request for leave to

file a motion for reconsideration. In order to provide guidance to Plaintiffs, if they wish to

renew their request, with respect to Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim premised on the alleged

warrantless entry, nothing in the Court’s Order precludes Plaintiff Crosley from arguing that she

suffered damages as a result of the Defendant Officers’ actions. However, should Plaintiffs

seek reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff Crosley’s excessive force claim, to the

extent that claim is premised on a Fourth Amendment violation, the Court notes that its ruling

was premised upon a finding that she was not “seized,” and the Court shall not revisit that

finding. 

The parties shall appear before Magistrate Judge James at 10:00 a.m. on December 21,

2007, as previously ordered. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04051-JSW Document 106 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Case 3:05-cv-04051-JSW Document 106 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 3