Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00541/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00541-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - 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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMOS LEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, a private

corporation, GERARD ARPEY; MARK

KOSTRZEWA; ROBERT COHEN; NANCY

TAYLOR; RICHARD WOODS; GERARD

SCHIPPERS; and Does 1 Through 20,

Inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-0541 SC

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST

FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 25, 2007, Defendants American Airlines et al.

("Defendants"), removed to this Court a case filed in state court

by the plaintiff Amos Lee ("Plaintiff"). See Docket No. 1. On

July 31, 2007, the Court issued an Order Granting Defendants'

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Order"). See Docket No.

22. The issue now before the Court arises on Plaintiff's Request

for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration ("Request"), pursuant

to Civil Local Rule 7-9. See Docket No. 24. Defendants have

filed an Opposition. See Docket No. 27.

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff's Request.

II. BACKGROUND

The facts of the case have been fully set out previously in

this action, see, e.g., Order, as well as in the related action of

Case 3:07-cv-00541-SC Document 28 Filed 11/20/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Amos Lee v. American Airlines, 05-CV-2709 SC ("Lee I"). The Court

therefore assumes the parties' familiarity with the facts and

discusses only those relevant to the pending issue. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Civil Local Rule 7-9, titled "Motion for Reconsideration,"

states:

Before the entry of a judgment

adjudicating all of the claims . . . of

the parties in a case, any party may make

a motion before a Judge requesting that

the Judge grant the party leave to file a

motion for reconsideration . . . . No

party may notice a motion for

reconsideration without first obtaining

leave of Court to file the motion.

Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). A party moving for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration must show: (1) that at the time of the motion, a

material difference in fact or law exists from that which was

previously presented to the Court; or (2) the emergence of new

material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such

an order; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider

material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented

to the Court before entry of the final order. Id. at (b). "No

motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat

any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support

of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now

seeks to have reconsidered." Id. at (c).

///

///

///

Case 3:07-cv-00541-SC Document 28 Filed 11/20/07 Page 2 of 4
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 3

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness

The Court issued the Order on July 31, 2007. The Court

issued the Judgment on this Order on August 1, 2007. See Docket

No. 23. Plaintiff did not file the Request until August 29, 2007. 

Thus, under Civil Local Rule 7-9, the Request is untimely. See

Civ. L.R. 7-9 (stating that a party must make a motion for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration "[b]efore the entry of a

judgment adjudicating all of the claims and the rights and

liabilities of all the parties in a case . . .").

Plaintiff also brings his Request under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59(e). Rule 59(e) states that "[a]ny motion to alter or

amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry

of the judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Thus, under Rule 59(e)

Plaintiff is also untimely. 

B. Merits

Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff's request was timely,

Plaintiff has not raised any new issues and therefore has not

satisfied the requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9. Plaintiff

asserts that the Court failed "to consider dispositive material

facts . . . ." Request at 3. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts

that the Court erred when it granted dismissal under the doctrine

of res judicata because the claim raised by Plaintiff in the most

recent action was for retaliatory termination for "Mr. Lee

asserting his rights to be represented by an attorney." Id. at 2. 

According to the sworn declaration of Mr. Lee's previous attorney,

this claim could not have been raised in the original action

Case 3:07-cv-00541-SC Document 28 Filed 11/20/07 Page 3 of 4
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

1 The Court encourages Plaintiff to reread Civil Local Rule

7-9(c), which not only prohibits the repetition of arguments in a

request for leave to file a motion to reconsider but also states

that "[a]ny party who violates this restriction shall be subject to

appropriate sanctions." Civ. L.R. 7-9(c).

4

because Mr. Lee's employment had not yet been terminated. See

Request, Katz Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.

Plaintiff, however, has already raised this argument in his

Opposition. See Opp'n, Docket No. 19, at 4 (stating "Plaintiff

could not have raised the claim of retaliation for engaging in

protected activity in the 1st complaint because at the time the

complaint was filed, Plaintiff was still employed by defendant,

and no retaliation for engaging in protected activity had yet

occurred"). The Court has already addressed this argument in its

Order. See Order at 4. Plaintiff's argument that the Court

failed "to consider dispositive material facts" is simply without

merit.1 Request at 3. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File a Motion for

Reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2007 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00541-SC Document 28 Filed 11/20/07 Page 4 of 4