Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04065/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-04065-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDUARDO PEÑA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-04065-MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Doc. No. 63

In the above-titled action, plaintiff alleges his application for an automobile loan 

was denied by defendant on a prohibited ground, specifically, on account of his status 

under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA"), and, in light of such denial, 

asserts claims on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative class.

By order filed December 23, 2019 ("December 23 Order"), the Court, inter alia,

granted defendant's request to bifurcate discovery, such that discovery on plaintiff's 

individual claims would be conducted prior to class-wide discovery. In said order, the 

Court noted defendant had offered evidence that its denial of plaintiff's application was

not based on plaintiff's status, but, rather, on his failure to provide certain documents, 

described by defendant as "a properly signed SSA-89" and a "valid work permit, visa, or 

DACA authorization." (See December 23 Order at 6:14-18.) Now before the Court is 

plaintiff's Motion, filed January 15, 2020, "for Leave to File a Partial Motion for 

Reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9," by which motion plaintiffs seek leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration of the Court's December 23 Order, to the extent the Court 

granted therein defendant's request to bifurcate discovery.

Under the Local Rules of this District, a party seeking reconsideration of an 

Case 3:19-cv-04065-MMC Document 75 Filed 01/24/20 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

interlocutory order must show (1) "a material difference in fact or law exists from that 

which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order" and 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"; (2) "[t]he emergence of new material 

facts or a change in 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." See Civil L. R. 7-9(b).

In support of the instant motion, plaintiff has submitted evidence he contends is 

sufficient to show he did submit to defendant the two documents defendant states were 

not submitted. First, plaintiff relies on an exchange of emails between plaintiff and one of 

defendant's employees, which emails, plaintiff asserts, confirm he did submit the subject 

documents. As plaintiff acknowledges, however, plaintiff possessed the emails prior to 

the entry of the Court's December 23 Order. Next, plaintiff relies on two documents he 

received from defendant on January 9, 2020, which documents, plaintiff asserts, likewise 

confirm his submission of the documents. Plaintiff, however, possessed one of those 

documents prior to December 23 (see Litrownik Decl. Exs. B, D), and plaintiff does not 

contend the second of those documents establishes any fact not established by the 

documents plaintiff previously possessed. Lastly, although plaintiff argues the abovereferenced documents establish the futility of any motion for summary judgment 

defendant anticipates filing as to plaintiff's individual claims, the Court is not in a position

to prejudge defendant's motion.

Under such circumstances, the Court finds that none of grounds set forth in Civil 

Local Rule 7-9(b) have been satisfied.

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 24, 2020

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-04065-MMC Document 75 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 2