Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01009/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01009-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TIMOTHY GENS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

SEZ AMERICA, INC.,

 Defendant.

Case Number C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER1 DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Re: Doc. No. 62]

Defendant seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of March

28, 2006 (“March 28 Order”), denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for

defamation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). This Court concluded that

Plaintiff technically failed to amend his complaint within thirty days as ordered by the Superior

Court, but that such failure did not warrant dismissal under Rule 41(b) in light of Plaintiff’s pro

se status, the unusual procedural history of the case and the absence of prejudice to Defendant. 

March 28 Order at 10. Defendant seeks reconsideration on the ground that new material facts

demonstrate that Plaintiff’s failure to amend his pleading in a timely fashion has caused

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 72 Filed 07/05/06 Page 1 of 4
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 subsequently denied Defendant’s second Rule 41(b) motion by order dated

June 2, 2006. 

Case No. C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC2)

Defendant severe prejudice.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed April 11, 2006, alleges that Plaintiff’s

former business partner and fellow employee, Gary Ferrell (“Ferrell”), was the primary source of

the alleged defamation. Ferrell died on March 20, 2006, approximately one week before this

Court issued its March 28 Order declining to dismiss the defamation claim.2 Defendant asserts

that it will be severely prejudiced if Plaintiff is permitted to proceed with his defamation claim

under these circumstances, because Defendant will not be able to depose Ferrell or obtain any

discovery from him.

The prejudice to Defendant makes the Rule 41(b) issue somewhat closer. However, the

Court will deny Defendant’s request to file a motion for reconsideration, because the Court

concludes that its decision would not be changed by the new material facts. When determining

whether to dismiss a claim or action under Rule 41(b), a court must balance five factors: (1) the

public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket;

(3) the risk of prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on

their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic alternatives. Yourish v. California Amplifier,

191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999). Factors (1) and (2) contribute nothing to the instant inquiry,

because this case is proceeding expeditiously following the initial delay. Clearly, Defendants

will be prejudiced to some degree by Ferrell’s death. However, not all of this prejudice is

attributable to Plaintiff. Defendant long has been aware that Plaintiff is alleging a defamation

claim, and could have pursued discovery as to the bases for that claim. Moreover, the Court is

responsible for a significant portion of the delay in the early stages of litigation, because the

parties’ cross-motions for remand and dismissal were under submission for approximately seven

months, from August 26, 2005 to March 28, 2006. In light of these facts, Plaintiff’s pro se

status, and the public policy favoring disposition of claims on their merits, the Court declines to

entertain a motion for reconsideration of its March 28 Order.

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 72 Filed 07/05/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC2)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is

DENIED. 

 

DATED: 7/5/06

__________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge 

 

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 72 Filed 07/05/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-01009 JF (PVT)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC2)

A copy of this Order was served on the following persons:

Plaintiff pro se:

Timothy Gens

Post Office Box 61029

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Counsel for Defendant SEZ America:

Jason A. Geller

David P. Borovsky 

Long & Levit LLP

465 California Street, Fifth Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Case 5:05-cv-01009-JF Document 72 Filed 07/05/06 Page 4 of 4