Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01567/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01567-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

PAUL M. HAYNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01567-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Paul M. Haynes’ Motion for Leave to File Motion for 

Reconsideration. Dkt. No. 72. In his Motion, Plaintiff states that he has exercised his right to 

revoke the settlement agreement, and he requests that the Court order Defendants to reinstatement 

his employment. The Court may permit a motion for reconsideration if Plaintiff shows:

(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. 

The party also must show 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; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a 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. 

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Here, as the Court has already declared the settlement agreement valid and 

enforceable, Plaintiff’s purported revocation is ineffective. See Dkt. Nos. 66, 71. Consequently, 

Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. 

The parties are reminded that, if the settlement ordinance has not become effective, they

must file an updated status report by January 15, 2015. Mr. Haynes is also reminded that failure 

by him to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement may result in sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015 ______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01567-MEJ Document 73 Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 1