Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01138/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01138-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FERIAL KAREN ARDALAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN MCHUGH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01138-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

[Re: ECF 95]

Plaintiff, for the third time, seeks leave to file a motion for equitable estoppel and tolling. 

ECF 95. The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s first motion for equitable estoppel and equitable 

tolling on a number of grounds. See Dismissal Order, ECF 75 at 27. Plaintiff has once previously 

sought reconsideration of the Court’s denial of leave, see ECF 78, which the Court also denied. 

See ECF 92 at 9-10. Plaintiff states that her previous motions for equitable estoppel were 

“incomplete and unedited due to the shortage of time” in which she was able to draft them. See 

Mot. at 13.1Plaintiff alleges once again, in her second motion for reconsideration on this issue, 

that Defendant has misrepresented or concealed facts related to this litigation. See Mot., ECF 95 at 

7-9. 

In this district, motions for reconsideration are governed by Civil Local Rule 7-9, which 

permits a party, before the entry of judgment, to seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration 

when one of three grounds is met: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which 

 

1

Plaintiff fashions her request as seeking leave to file a “revised” motion for equitable estoppel 

and tolling. See, e.g., Mot. at 22. Her previous request, however, was filed on September 26, 2014, 

nearly six months ago. See ECF 78. The Court rendered a decision on that motion on February 10, 

2015. Plaintiff’s motion is therefore construed to be a second motion for reconsideration of the 

Court’s denial of her first motion for equitable estoppel and tolling, and not a motion to revise her 

previous (and already decided) motion for reconsideration. 

Case 5:13-cv-01138-BLF Document 97 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 3
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

was presented to the Court before entry of the order on which reconsideration is sought; (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. See Civil 

L.R. 7-9(b). 

Plaintiff does not state the grounds on which she seeks reconsideration, and notices her 

motion pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-1 and 7-2, rather than 7-9, which properly governs her 

request because the Court has twice previously ruled on this question. See, e.g., Nidac Corp. v. 

Victor Co. of Japan, Ltd., 2007 WL 4108092, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2007). Though Plaintiff is 

proceeding in this action pro se, and pro se plaintiffs are held to a lower standard with regard to 

their pleadings, pro se plaintiffs “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other 

litigants.” Brown v. Rumsfeld, 211 F.R.D. 601, 605 (N.D. Cal. 2002). 

The Court has made abundantly clear to Plaintiff that she has not shown how the actions of 

Defendant in this matter have been fraudulent or improper. See, e.g., ECF 92 at 10. Nothing in 

Plaintiff’s third motion for equitable estoppel asserts new arguments. It merely repeats and 

reiterates claims that Plaintiff has made continually throughout this litigation – namely, her 

contention that Defendant has not affirmatively told her the names and circumstances of other 

individuals who were terminated for cause from the Defense Language Institute. As the Court has 

already explained to Plaintiff regarding her last motion for reconsideration:

[T]he parties have not yet engaged in substantive discovery in this 

action. . . . The fact that Defendant has not affirmatively disclosed []

information to Plaintiff, however, is not fraudulent concealment, and 

it assuredly is not improper at this stage of the litigation. Plaintiff 

once again has not shown how this alleged misconduct on the part of 

Defendant has prevented her from filing suit – she has done so 

repeatedly in the federal courts and with various administrative 

agencies.

ECF 92 at 10. 

Plainly, Civil Local Rule 7-9 does not contemplate a plaintiff bringing two motions for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration on the same question. Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally 

defective, and the Court therefore DENIES it. See Jones v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2010 WL 

4055928, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010). As the Supreme Court held in Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 

Case 5:13-cv-01138-BLF Document 97 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

501 U.S. 32 (1991), the Court may impose sanctions, up to and including dismissal of the suit, 

when a party abuses the judicial process. Id. at 44-45. 

The Court elects not to sanction Plaintiff at this time, but instructs her that future motions 

for leave to file motions for equitable estoppel and tolling will be summarily stricken from the 

docket upon filing, and the Court shall impose further sanctions on Plaintiff if she files any such 

motions in the future. The Court has clearly delineated what claims can and cannot be brought in 

this litigation in two lengthy orders on Plaintiff’s pleadings. Plaintiff’s continued attempts to 

expand the scope of this suit by filing motions for estoppel and tolling that merely restate the 

claims she has made throughout the litigation are procedurally improper and a drain on court 

resources. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 25, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-01138-BLF Document 97 Filed 03/25/15 Page 3 of 3