Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-02252/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-02252-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

DUKES, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 01-2252 CRB

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Wal-Mart previously moved to dismiss or strike the class allegations in Plaintiffs'

Fourth Amended Complaint, arguing in relevant part that putative class members had not

filed timely administrative charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

and could not "piggyback" or "coattail" on the charge filed by former named plaintiff

Stephanie Odle. Mot. to Dismiss (dkt. 781) at 23-33. This Court denied Wal-Mart's motion

in September 2012, holding that the putative class members could coattail on Odle's charge. 

Order (dkt. 812) at 13.

Wal-Mart now requests leave to seek reconsideration of this Court's order, arguing

that an October 2012 development in a case in federal district court in Texas, where Odle

filed a separate suit in 2011 seeking to represent a class of Wal-Mart employees different

than the class at issue here, constitutes "a change in fact and law that warrants

reconsideration of this Court's coattailing ruling." Mot. at 1 (citing Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores,

Inc., No. 11-02954, 2012 WL 5292957 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 15, 2012)).

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 838 Filed 01/14/13 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\2001\2252\order denying reconsideration v2.wpd 2

To be granted leave to file a motion for reconsideration, a party must demonstrate 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. 

Civil L.R. 7-9(b); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). 

The development in the Texas litigation is not a new material fact or change in law. 

The court there held that Odle's 2011 Texas suit was not timely, Odle, 2012 WL 5292957 at

*10, which would only be material if this Court accepted Wal-Mart's premise–squarely

rejected in this Court's September 2012 order–that the Fourth Amended Complaint is (like

the Texas litigation) a "new" class action attempting to rely on Odle's 1999 administrative

charge. 

Wal-Mart does not purport to identify new facts or law justifying reconsideration of

that premise. Rather, it rehashes the same arguments that failed to carry the day when this

Court concluded that this is the same case that was initiated in 2001, and that this Court's

2002 ruling that putative class members could rely on Odle's charge continues to apply to the

subset identified in the Fourth Amended Complaint. See Order at 12-13. 

Wal-Mart's arguments are not frivolous, but this Court has carefully considered them

and made its ruling. Nothing in the proposed motion for reconsideration sheds new light on

the issue. The Court DENIES Wal-Mart's request for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration. 

Dated: January 14, 2013 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 838 Filed 01/14/13 Page 2 of 2