Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04432/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-04432-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONOMA COUNTY ASS’N OF RETIRED 

EMPLOYEES,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONOMA COUNTY,

Defendant.

________________________________/

No. C 09-4432 CW

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION FOR LEAVE 

TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 142)

In May 2013, after this case was remanded from the Ninth 

Circuit, Plaintiff Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees 

(SCARE)filed its Second Amended Complaint (2AC) asserting that 

Defendant Sonoma County's new cap on healthcare benefit 

contributions to retirees constituted a breach of the County’s 

longstanding agreement to pay for its retirees’ healthcare 

benefits costs in perpetuity. The County filed a motion to 

dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. On January 10, 2014, the Court granted the motion 

in part, dismissing the 2AC with respect to non-union retirees and 

those hired before 1990. Docket No. 96. In addition, the Court 

precluded Plaintiff from proceeding on any claims based on the 

1985 "tie agreement," reasoning that SCARE had failed to identify 

a specific ordinance or resolution creating that contract. Id. 

Plaintiff now requests leave to file motion for reconsideration, 

noting that the distinction between pre- and post- 1990 hires was 

not addressed in Defendant's motion to dismiss SCARE's 2AC or 

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 150 Filed 02/19/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff's opposition. In addition, SCARE contends that new 

material facts have been revealed in the course of discovery.

After considering the parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff's motion for leave to file motion for reconsideration. 

Docket No. 142. The request for leave is deemed to constitute the 

motion for reconsideration. Defendant may file a response of 

fifteen pages or less within fourteen days of the date of this 

order. Plaintiff may file a reply in support of its motion of up 

to seven pages within seven days thereafter. The matter will be 

decided on the papers unless a hearing is set by the Court. The 

parties may stipulate to extending the upcoming deadlines.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 2/19/2015 CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-04432-CW Document 150 Filed 02/19/15 Page 2 of 2