Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02560/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02560-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 42:6901 Environmental Cleanup Expenses

---

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

HUMBOLDT BAYKEEPER and

ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY,

et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-02560 JSW

ORDER REGARDING CUE VI,

LLC’S MOTION ON PLAINTIFF’S

FIRST CLAIM

Defendant CUE VI, LLC (“CUE VI”) filed a document entitled motion for judgment on

the pleadings and noticed it to be heard on a Monday, during the pretrial conference. CUE VI’s

motion is improper for several reasons. This Court holds hearings on civil motions on Friday

mornings, not Monday afternoons. The only motions the Court hears at pretrial conferences are

motions in limine. Moreover, as CUE VI mentions in its motion, the Court has already

addressed the issue raised in its motion. Therefore, CUE VI should have filed a motion for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration, not a new motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

Nevertheless, CUE VI does point to authority issued after the Court ruled on this issue. A

motion for reconsideration may be made on one of three grounds, including the emergence of a

change of law. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). Therefore, despite the fact that CUE VI could have moved for

reconsideration over three years ago, CUE VI states a legitimate ground for moving for

reconsideration. Although the Court does not condone CUE VI’s lengthy delay in moving on 

Case 3:06-cv-02560-JSW Document 427 Filed 06/24/10 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

this issue, because the rule does not set a deadline to move for reconsideration as long as

judgement has not been entered, the Court GRANTS CUE VI leave to file a motion for

reconsideration. Moreover, in light of the imminent pretrial conference and trial, the Court will

not require CUE VI to refile its motion as a properly noticed motion for reconsideration. 

Instead, the Court will construe the motion for judgment on the pleadings as one for

reconsideration. 

The Court ORDERS that Plaintiffs shall file an opposition to CUE VI’s motion for

reconsideration by no later than July 8, 2010 and CUE VI shall file a reply, if any, by no later

than July 15, 2010. Because the Court does not have any available Friday hearings before the

pretrial conference, the Court will only set a hearing if necessary after reviewing the papers.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-02560-JSW Document 427 Filed 06/24/10 Page 2 of 2