Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06408-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHRYN HOGAN, et al., CASE NO. CV-F-03-6408 LJO WMW

 

Plaintiffs, ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ AND

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (DOC. 185);

GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN

PART MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

vs.

FRESNO COUNTY SHERIFF’S

DEPUTY MICHAEL ROBINSON,

et al.,

Defendants.

 / 

On May 10, 2007, Plaintiffs and their counsel moved for reconsideration of the Magistrate

Judge’s April 26, 2007 order which: (1) granted Defendants’ motion to preclude expert witness

testimony (Doc. 159), (2) granted Defendant Patricia Towne’s motion to strike Plaintiffs’ expert witness

disclosure (Doc. 160), (3) denied Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw (Doc. 164) and (4) denied

Plaintiffs’ motion for appointment of Bradshaw counsel or certify order of April 17, 2007 for appeal

(Doc. 164). A hearing on the motion for reconsideration was scheduled (Doc. 193) and took place on

May 17, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 4 (LJO). Plaintiffs Kathryn Hogan and Charlotte-Marie Hogan

appeared by attorney Kevin Little. Defendant Patricia Towne appeared by attorney Jerry D. Casheros.

Defendants Michael Robinson and Country of Fresno appeared by Michael R. Linden.

Local Rule 78-230(k) governs motions for reconsideration of non-final orders. That rule

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 205 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 3
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

provides: 

Whenever any motion has been granted or denied in whole or in part, and a subsequent

motion for reconsideration is made upon the same or any alleged different set of facts,

it shall be the duty of counsel to present to the Judge...to whom subsequent motion is

made an affidavit, or brief, as appropriate, setting forth each motion for which

reconsideration is sought, including: 

1) when and to what Judge...the prior motion was made;

2) what ruling, decision or order was made thereon; 

3) what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist or were not shown

upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion; and

4) why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.

Though motions for reconsideration are generally disfavored, a motion to reconsider is appropriate if

the court committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust. School Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County v. AcandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9 Cir. 1993). A party seeking reconsideration th

must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature to induce a court to reverse its prior decision.

Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 565, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and

rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9 Cir. 1997). th

On the record, for PART of the hearing only, the Court asked all parties to leave the courtroom

except Plaintiffs’ counsel and court employees. The Court then held a hearing on the record, made a

specific finding, and which the Court thereafter ordered sealed. Based on: (1) a finding made during the

sealed portion of the hearing, (2) the evidence that the declaration from the treating physician of

Plaintiffs’ counsel dated 5/15/2007 was not generated at the time ofthe motion to withdraw and was not,

therefore, made available to the Magistrate Judge, and (3) the evidence that Plaintiffs had been

adequately noticed by their counsel, and had not objected to Plaintiffs’ counsels motion to withdraw,

the Court found that the new facts were of a strong and convincing nature and thus GRANTED the

motion for reconsideration IN PART, as that motion pertained to Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to

withdraw. The motion to withdraw was granted, and Plaintiffs’ counsel’s withdrawal is effective

immediately. Plaintiffs are now In Pro Se.

Having considered the following documents: (a) the 16-page memorandum, opinion and order

filed by the Magistrate Judge on May 15, 2007 relating to the April 26, 2007 order (Doc. 195); (b)

Plaintiffs’ counsels 27-page memorandum of points and authorities in support of the instant motion for

reconsideration (Doc. 185), (c) Defendants’ counsel’s memoranda in opposition to the motion for

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 205 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 3
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

reconsideration (Docs. 199, 200); (d) Plaintiffs’ counsel’s supplemental briefs (Docs., 201and 202), the

Court found no cause to overturn the Magistrate Judge’s order on any other motions or matters.

Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration on all other motions was DENIED. 

The trial date remains intact, as do all other orders of this Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 17, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06408-LJO-GSA Document 205 Filed 05/17/07 Page 3 of 3