Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00401/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00401-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

 Plaintiff states that she subsequently, on February 27, 2008, obtained a copy of

the opposition. (See id.) The deadline for plaintiff to file a reply to the opposition was

February 28, 2008. Plaintiff does not explain why she did not, upon obtaining a copy of the

opposition on February 27, 2008, seek an extension of such deadline at that time.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIA CHEVALIER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SUTTER HOTEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-07-0401 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiff Kia Chevalier’s “Motion for Reconsideration of the Order

of Judge Chesney, March 5, 2008 (Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike &/; Vacating

Hearing),” filed March 19, 2008, which filing the Court construes as a motion for leave to file

a motion for reconsideration. See Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) (providing “[n]o party may notice

a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion”). 

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Court’s March 5, 2008 order based on the

existence of new facts, including the fact that plaintiff did not receive a copy of defendant

Oakland Sutter’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion to strike, filed February 12, 2008, at the

time it was filed. (See Pl.’s Mot. for Reconsideration Ex. A at 1.)1 By the instant filing,

Case 3:07-cv-00401-MMC Document 46 Filed 03/24/08 Page 1 of 2
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

 The April 23, 2008 hearing on the matter is hereby VACATED.

2

plaintiff presents her argument in reply to said opposition. (See id. at 2.) 

Assuming, arguendo, the circumstances described by plaintiff could justify

reconsideration, plaintiff’s reply would not have affected, and does not affect, the factual

basis or reasoning on which the Court’s March 5, 2008 order relied. Specifically, plaintiff’s

argument does not alter the underlying facts that plaintiff’s motion to strike was not filed

until January 25, 2008, and, as such, was untimely, (see Order Denying Pl.’s Mot. to Strike

at 2:6-8), that the Clerk of Court has not entered default against Oakland Sutter, (see id. at

2:9-15), or that defense counsel represents only Oakland Sutter in the instant action, (see

id. at 2:25-3:1). Further, plaintiff presents no legal authority contrary to the Court’s

reasoning.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is hereby DENIED.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00401-MMC Document 46 Filed 03/24/08 Page 2 of 2