Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04005/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04005-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINE CHANG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROCKRIDGE MANOR CONDOMINIUM, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-4005 EMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

APPLICATION FOR

RECONSIDERATION TO APPOINT

COUNSEL FOR GUARDIAN AD LITEM

(Docket No. 95)

Previously, the Court issued an order denying Plaintiffs’ application to appoint counsel for

guardian ad litem. See Docket No. 86. Plaintiffs have now moved the Court to reconsider its denial. 

Plaintiffs also ask “for the reason of denial to correct the deficiency in [their prior] application.” 

Mot. at 2. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ papers and the accompanying submissions, the Court hereby

DENIES the motion to reconsider.

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that, under Civil Local Rule 7-9, “[n]o party may

notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion.” Civ.

L.R. 7-9(a). Moreover, the party moving for leave to file a motion for reconsideration

must specifically show: 

(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

Case 3:07-cv-04005-EMC Document 104 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 3
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

2

(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). Plaintiffs have failed to meet this standard. Plaintiffs simply restate arguments

previously made or offer evidence which they could have submitted previously but failed to do so. 

As to Plaintiffs’ request for the reason for the Court’s denial of their initial application for

appointment of counsel for guardian ad litem, the Court notes that, inter alia, Plaintiffs failed to

provide evidence regarding efforts made to obtain counsel (as required by the Court’s CMC order)

and failed to demonstrate that the merits of their case are strong so as to warrant appointment of

counsel.

Even if the Court were to reconsider and now find that plaintiffs have demonstrated efforts to

obtain counsel, plaintiffs shall have not demonstrated that the merits of the case are sufficiently

strong to warrant appointment of counsel.

This order disposes of Docket No. 95.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2008

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04005-EMC Document 104 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 3
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTINE CHANG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ROCKRIDGE MANOR CONDOMINIUM, et

al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-07-4005 EMC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

Christine Chang

341 Tideway Drive #214

Alameda, CA 94501

ALL OTHER COUNSEL SERVED VIA

ELECTRONIC FILING

Dated: January 3, 2008 RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

By: /s/ 

Leni Doyle

Deputy Clerk

Case 3:07-cv-04005-EMC Document 104 Filed 01/03/08 Page 3 of 3