Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03792/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-03792-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS E. PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA PACIFIC BANK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03792-JD 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 114

In this ERISA enforcement action, the Court issued on July 20, 2015, an order denying 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and granting in part and denying in part the Secretary 

of Labor’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 112. Pending before the Court is 

defendants’ request under Civil Local Rule 7-9 for leave to a file a motion for reconsideration of 

the summary judgment order. Dkt. No. 114. The Secretary of Labor has filed an opposition to the 

motion. Dkt. No. 120. Leave is denied. 

Civil Local Rule 7-9 -- which defendants expressly invoke, as they must -- sets out three 

grounds, at least one of which must be satisfied for a successful motion for leave to file a motion 

for reconsideration. Defendants rely on only one of those grounds: that the Court “failed to 

consider material facts.” Dkt. No. 114 at 2; see Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(3) (listing as one of three

grounds moving party “must specifically show . . . [a] manifest failure by the Court to consider 

material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such 

interlocutory order”). 

None of defendants’ arguments meets that standard. Specifically: 

Count One. Contrary to defendants’ arguments, the Court clearly considered the entirety 

of Section 10.4 of the Plan document. See Dkt. No. 112 at 4-8. Defendants have not identified a 

“material fact” that the Court manifestly failed to consider, and instead merely repeat arguments 

Case 3:13-cv-03792-JD Document 122 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

that they have already made multiple times, including in the summary judgment briefing, and 

which the Court has now expressly considered and rejected. Repetition of argument in this 

manner is strictly prohibited and will be sanctioned should it occur again. See Civil L.R. 7-9(c). 

Count Two. Defendants again have not identified any material fact the Court failed to 

consider (much less “manifestly” failed to consider), and instead argue that the Court “applied the 

wrong standard of review on a motion for summary judgment.” Dkt. No. 114 at 3. This does not 

meet the Civil Local Rule 7-9 standard, and is simply wrong as a point of law. See generally Dkt. 

No. 120 at 5-8 (identifying, correctly, the other relevant evidence that was before the Court for 

Count Two); see also Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1065 n.10 (9th Cir. 

2002) (on summary judgment, court “need not draw all possible inferences in [non-moving 

party’s] favor, but only all reasonable ones.”) (emphases in original).

Liability of Trustees (Akila Chen, Kent Chen and William Mo). Defendants’ final 

argument for leave to file for reconsideration is that “[n]o facts were presented by the Department 

of Labor which warranted the entry of judgment as to the Trustees,” further describing the 

Trustees’ apparent belief that they “had no reason to present evidence regarding their compliance 

with their duties based on the motions pending before the Court.” Dkt. No. 114 at 3-4. Yet again, 

defendants fail to identify a “material fact” that the Court did not consider, and instead admit they 

presented none that may have defeated summary judgment against these individual trustee 

defendants. The Secretary’s allegations and arguments in this case sufficiently support summary 

judgment as to those defendants, see, e.g., Dkt. No. 120 at 13-14, and defendants’ deficiencies in 

responding to the Secretary’s motion do not constitute a reason for reconsideration of the 

summary judgment order.

Defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7-

9, Dkt. No.114, is consequently denied in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-03792-JD Document 122 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 2