Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04565/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04565-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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 granted Kinnard one extension of the deadline to file his opposition to

the motion for summary judgment, (see Docket No. 336), and denied his second request

for an extension without prejudice to his filing a further request supported by admissible

evidence as to why an extension was necessary, (see Docket No. 347).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH R. KINNARD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ROGERS TRUCKING, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-99-4565 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

(Docket No. 365)

Before the Court is plaintiff Kenneth Kinnard’s (”Kinnard”) motion, filed June 26,

2006, for permission to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s June 12, 2006 order

denying Kinnard’s motion to set aside judgment. 

The essence of Kinnard’s argument for setting aside the judgment is that he was too

ill to file an opposition sufficient to defeat defendant Rogers Trucking’s motion for summary

judgment.1

 In denying the motion to set aside judgment, the Court relied on the Ninth

Circuit’s holding that “[t]he district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied

Kinnard’s request for a continuance for medical reasons because Kinnard did not submit

admissible evidence showing why a continuance was necessary.” See Order Denying

Plaintiff’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment, filed June 12, 2006, at 1 (citing Kinnard v. Rogers

Case 3:99-cv-04565-MMC Document 365 Filed 06/28/06 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

Trucking, 2006 WL 1009282 at *1 (9th Cir. 2006)). Kinnard now seeks to file a motion for

reconsideration, arguing he has evidence concerning his health that was not considered by

the Ninth Circuit.

Assuming, arguendo, the evidence Kinnard now submits to this Court was not

considered by the Ninth Circuit, Kinnard has not demonstrated the judgment should be set

aside. During the period of time in which Kinnard states he was too ill to file adequate

papers, he nonetheless was able to file (1) a motion to compel and for sanctions against

defendant Peak Engineering (filed May 27, 2005); (2) a second motion to compel and for

sanctions against defendant Rogers Trucking (filed May 27, 2005); (3) a lengthy response

to defendants’ status report (filed May 31, 2005); (4) an opposition to the motion for

summary judgment (filed June 1, 2005); and (5) a request to continue the hearing on the

motion for summary judgment (filed June 3, 2005). (See Docket Nos. 339-343, 345-346.) 

Despite any illness, Kinnard remained capable of filing documents when he chose to do so.

Moreover, Kinnard has not demonstrated he has sufficient evidence to successfully

oppose the motion for summary judgment. The declarations attached to Kinnard’s motion

to set aside the judgment fail to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether Rogers

Trucking denied Kinnard work on the BART Extension Project because of his race, in

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 17200 of the California Business and Professions

Code.

Accordingly, Kinnard’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is hereby

DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 365.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-04565-MMC Document 365 Filed 06/28/06 Page 2 of 2