Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03339/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03339-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK M. McCOLLUM, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-03339 CRB

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On August 8, 2006, the Court issued a Memorandum and Order granting in part and

denying in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of plaintiff Patrick McCollum. 

Nearly nine months later, plaintiff McCollum filed a motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of that decision. That motion is now pending before the Court.

Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) requires the party moving for

reconsideration to show one of the following:

(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 shall also 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 which were

presented to the court before such interlocutory order.

Case 3:04-cv-03339-CRB Document 214 Filed 06/11/07 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

G:\CRBALL\2004\3339\orderdenyingleave1.wpd2

Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1). Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file does not even attempt to

comply with this Rule; instead, he merely reargues the issues already presented to the Court. 

The Court disagrees with plaintiff’s recent characterization of the ruling as deciding issues

“sua sponte.” The Memorandum and Order relied on cases cited by and thoroughly

discussed by the parties in their briefs and at oral argument. Plaintiff’s inordinate and

unexplained delay in bringing this motion is further evidence that the Court’s ruling did not

decide any issues that were not raised in the parties’ papers; if it had, the Court expects that

plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, would have promptly moved for an opportunity to

respond to the “new” issues raised by the Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03339-CRB Document 214 Filed 06/11/07 Page 2 of 2