Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04094/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04094-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

CONCORD COMMUNITIES, L.P., et al.

Petitioners,

 v.

THE CITY OF CONCORD, et al.

Respondents,

 and

TENANTS RESIDING AT ADOBE MOBILE

LODGE AND DIABLO MOBILE LODGE,

Real Parties in Interest.

 /

No. C 05-04094 JSW

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR

LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

On March 15, 2006, Petitioners filed a request for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration on the Court’s order granting Respondents’ motion to dismiss or stay. A party

moving for reconsideration must first seek leave of the court to file such a motion and must

specifically demonstrate: (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; or (2) the emergence of new material facts or 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. Civil L.R. 7-9(a) and (b). Petitioners argue that this Court failed to

consider dispositive legal arguments which they presented to the Court. 

Case 3:05-cv-04094-JSW Document 33 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

2

The Court granted Respondents’ motion to abstain from adjudicating this matter under

the Younger doctrine. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court

“espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial

proceedings.” H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotations omitted). 

The Court did not reach the merits of Petitioners’ claims, but rather, pursuant to the Younger

doctrine, dismissed without prejudice Petitioners’ claims for equitable relief and stayed

Petitioners’ claims for damages pending resolution of the state court proceedings. Petitioners’

request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration addresses arguments they made regarding

the merits of their claims. Whether Petitioners may or may not have meritorious takings claims

under the Due Process Clause does not undermine the basis of this Court’s order granting

Respondents’ motion to dismiss or stay pursuant to the Younger doctrine. Therefore, Petitioners

have not demonstrated a manifest failure by the Court to consider dispositive legal arguments. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Petitioners’ request to file a motion for reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 19, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04094-JSW Document 33 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 2