Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02828/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02828-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

SELF-INSURED’S SECURITY FUND,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 06-02828 JSW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND

SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

ON MOTION TO CERTIFY FOR

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Defendant Gallagher Bassett

Services’ (“Gallagher”) motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of this Court’s

Order denying its motion to dismiss.

A motion for reconsideration may be made on one of three grounds: (1) a material

difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court, which, in the

exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for reconsideration did not know at the time

of the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a manifest

failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented before

entry of the order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). In addition, the moving party may not reargue any

written or oral argument previously asserted to the Court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). 

Gallagher premises its motion on the third basis and argues that it was not permitted to

brief or address the Court’s reliance on Palmer v. Stassinos, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (N.D. Cal.

2004), authority that was available to the parties when they briefed the motion to dismiss. 

Case 3:06-cv-02828-JSW Document 36 Filed 02/13/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Gallagher correctly notes that the court in Palmer reconsidered its decision and

dismissed the plaintiff’s Section 17200 claim. However, as this Court noted, the basis for the

Palmer court’s reconsideration was the passage of Proposition 64, which it concluded was to be

applied retroactively. Because the plaintiff had not lost money or property as a result of the

allegedly unfair and unlawful activities in which defendants engaged, she could not satisfy

Proposition 64’s standing requirements. Palmer v. Stassinos, 419 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1154 (N.D.

Cal. 2005). Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff has lost money as a result of Gallagher’s

allegedly unlawful business practices. (See Docket No. 31 at 6 n.1.) 

The Court also concludes that, upon review of the proffered motion for reconsideration,

Gallagher reargues points previously asserted to the Court and, in essence, merely expresses its

disagreement with the Court’s decision. For these reasons, Gallagher’s motion for leave to file

a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

Gallagher also has filed a motion to certify the Order denying the motion to dismiss for

interlocutory appeal and set the matter for a hearing on March 30, 2007. Plaintiff’s Opposition

shall be due on March 2, 2007, and Gallagher’s reply shall be due on March 9, 2007. If the

Court finds the matter suitable for disposition for oral argument, it shall notify the parties in

advance of the hearing date. If the parties wish to modify this briefing schedule, they shall file

a stipulation or a request that must demonstrate good cause for an extension. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 13, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02828-JSW Document 36 Filed 02/13/07 Page 2 of 2