Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02722/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-02722-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Benefits

---

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

GENERAL EMPLOYEES TRUST FUND

and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GENERAL

EMPLOYEES TRUST FUND,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

EAST BAY BUILDING SERVICES, a

partnership, ABDULLAH HOMRAN,

individually and as a partner in EAST BAY

BUILDING SERVICES, and NABILA

HOMRAN, individually and as a partner in

EAST BAY BUILDING SERVICES,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-02722 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION

FOR RECONSIDERATION

In this ERISA action, plaintiffs General Employees Trust Fund and Board of Trustees

of General Employees Trust Fund were granted partial summary judgment against defendant

East Bay Building Services, Abdullah Homran and Nabila Homran. Defendants, who are

proceeding pro se, have now filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. Civil Local Rule

7-9(b) provides that a party moving for reconsideration must show:

(1) That at the time of a motion for leave [to file a motion for

reconsideration], 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 also must 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

Case 3:09-cv-02722-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/29/10 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

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court

before such interlocutory order.

Defendants have not shown any of the above. Their motion merely repeats almost

verbatim statements from their amended answer to the complaint (Dkt. No. 6). Their motion

for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-02722-JSW Document 30 Filed 04/29/10 Page 2 of 2