Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02486/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02486-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

COYNESS L. ENNIX JR., M.D., as an

individual and in his representative capacity

under Business & Professions Code

Section 17200, et seq.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RUSSELL D. STANTEN, M.D., LEIGH I.G.

IVERSON, M.D., STEVEN A. STANTEN,

M.D., WILLIAM M. ISENBERG, M.D.,

Ph.D., ALTA BATES SUMMIT MEDICAL

CENTER, and DOES 1 through 100,

Defendants. /

No. C 07-02486 WHA

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

In this case arising out of a medical peer review, defendant Alta Bates Summit Medical

Center moves for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. On August 28, 2007, the Court

granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Defendants then

filed its notice for leave to file a motion for reconsideration on August 31, 2007. In its motion,

defendants argue that the Court should reconsider its finding that the anti-SLAPP (Strategic

Lawsuit Against Public Participation) motion filed by defendants was moot because its motion

expressly requested an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Code of Civil

Procedure 425.16(c). A response from plaintiffs was requested and received on September 7,

2007.

Motions for reconsideration are decided within the discretion of the district court. “To

prevail on a motion to reconsider, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing

nature to induce the Court to reverse its prior decision.” Walker v. Carnival Cruise Lines, 107

F.Supp.2d 1135, 1138 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), motions for leave

Case 3:07-cv-02486-WHA Document 95 Filed 09/10/07 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

to file a motion for reconsideration may be filed if a party can demonstrate: (1) that there is a

material difference of fact or law between the time of the motion for leave and the time of an

entry of an interlocutory order; (2) that new material facts emerged or a change of law occurred

after the entry of the order; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or

dispositive legal arguments which were presented before the interlocutory order was entered.

The only potential basis for granting reconsideration in this case is that there was a

manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which

were presented before the interlocutory order was entered. Plaintiff’s complaint stated the

following six claims against defendants: (1) violation of California’s Unruh Act; (2) violation of

California’s Cartwright Act; (3) tortious interference with plaintiff’s right to practice his

profession; (4) violation of California Business and Professions Code 17200; and (5) racial

discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. The Court finds that there is no justification for

granting leave to file a motion for reconsideration. First, there was no manifest failure by the

Court to consider material facts just because it had determined that the anti-SLAPP motion to

strike was moot. The August 28 order found that defendants’ motion to strike was only directed

at the state claims, which had been dismissed on other grounds. Facts material to the motion to

strike were considered by the Court because they were the same facts considered in dismissing

plaintiffs’ state claims. Second, there was no manifest failure by the Court to consider

dispositive legal arguments. Whether or not to grant attorneys’ fees and costs is an issue

tangential to plaintiff’s California state claims and claim of racial discrimination.

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2007. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-02486-WHA Document 95 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2