Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00336/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00336-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRET ROBERT OSBORN, MICHAEL

PRAFF, KATHLEEN ANN PRAFF, and

MARTY GAYLE OSBORN, on behalf of

themselves, the general public, and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EMC CORPORATION, and Does 1 through

50,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 04-00336 JSW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE

A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Over five months after this Court granted Defendant EMC Corporation’s motion for

summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of Defendant on all claims except Plaintiffs’

claims relating to leases, and one month after the appeal of the Court’s order granting summary

judgment was voluntarily dismissed pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiffs now request

by letter that the Court allow them to file a motion for reconsideration. 

Plaintiffs’ request is misguided for several reasons. First, Plaintiffs presented their

request to Court by letter as opposed to a motion as required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(a). 

Second, motions for reconsideration are only appropriate with respect to interlocutory orders. 

See Civ. L.R. 7-9. Here, the Court granted summary judgment and entered summary judgment

on October 28, 2005. Plaintiffs appealed this order and judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals as “final decision of [the] district court.” (Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’

Case 3:04-cv-00336-JSW Document 146 Filed 04/19/06 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

1

 The parties subsequently executed a settlement agreement with respect to Plaintiffs’

sales transaction claims – the claims which were the subject of the Court’s summary

judgment order and judgment – in which Plaintiffs agreed to “withdraw and dismiss with

prejudice their appeal to the Ninth Circuit.” (Defendants’ Opp., Ex. E.) The Ninth Circuit

dismissed the appeal pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. (Docket No. 137.)

2

Request for Leave (“Defendant’s Opp.”), Ex. C.)1 By appealing the Court’s order granting

summary judgment, Plaintiffs at once conceded that this order was a final, appealable order, and

also divested this Court of jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ requested motion for reconsideration. 

See United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d 1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Once a

notice of appeal takes effect, the district court loses jurisdiction over the matter placed before

the appellate court.”). Accordingly, even if the Plaintiffs’ request were properly filed and

sought reconsideration of an interlocutory order, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a motion

for reconsideration. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-00336-JSW Document 146 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 2