Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05564/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05564-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERESA AGUIRRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-05564-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 156

On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff Teresa Aguirre requested leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration of the Court’s order reconsidering in part its order granting partial summary 

judgment. Dkt. No. 156. In the April 25, 2018 order, the Court discussed the scope of the issues 

of fact for trial as to Plaintiff’s interference claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 

U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. (“FMLA), and the California Family Rights Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 

12945.2 (“CFRA”). Dkt. No. 155 at 2. A party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order 

must “show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion” and—as relevant here—either that “a 

material difference in law or fact exists from that which was presented to the Court” before the 

challenged order, or “a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments” presented to it before its issuance of the challenged order. Civil L.R. 7-9(b). A 

motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for perpetually relitigating the Court’s rulings, or a 

substitute for appeal. See Durkee v. Ford Motor Co., No. C 14-0617 PJH, 2015 WL 1156765 

(N.D. Cal. 2015) at * 2 (“[M]ere disagreement with a court’s order does not provide a basis for 

reconsideration.”) (citation omitted); GSI Tech., Inc. v. United Memories, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-01081-

PSG, 2015 WL 4463742 (N.D. Cal. 2015) at * 4 (stating that “reconsideration is not an 

opportunity to relitigate issues that have already been thoughtfully decided”) (citation and internal 

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 157 Filed 05/14/18 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

quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff has shown neither the existence of a newly material legal or factual difference, nor 

has she shown a failure on the Court’s part to consider material facts or dispositive arguments. To 

the extent Plaintiff continues to dispute the manner in which the Court will frame the issues for 

trial, and the Court’s rejection of her “per se violation” theory, her position is preserved for appeal.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

5/14/2018

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 157 Filed 05/14/18 Page 2 of 2