Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05849/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-05849-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

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

MUELLER ET AL,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 TACO BELL CORP.,

Defendant. /

No. C02-05849 MJJ

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Before the Court is Defendant Taco Bell’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Reconsideration of the

Court’s August 8, 2007 order granting in part Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. (Docket

No. 319.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), the moving party must show the existence of a

material difference in fact or law, the emergence of new material facts or a change of law, or a

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

the Court. See Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). After careful review of Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff’s Opposition,

Defendant’s Reply and other relevant documents in the record, the Court finds that Defendants have

not met their burden under Rule 7-9(b). The Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s Motion for

Reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2008 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:02-cv-05849-PJH Document 367 Filed 03/24/08 Page 1 of 1