Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04632/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04632-43/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID

TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

WILLIAM D. SPENCER, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04632 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On March 9, 2007, defendants filed a letter brief seeking leave to file a motion for

reconsideration of an order issued by the Court on February 27, 2007. For the following reasons, the

Court DENIES defendants’ application for leave. 

In the Northern District of California, no motion for reconsideration may be brought without

leave of court. See Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Defendants bring their application pursuant to Civil Local Rule

7-9(b)(3), which provides: “The moving party must specifically show: . . . (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.” Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

Defendants seek reconsideration of the February 27, 2007 Order re Form of Judgment, in which

the Court rejected a proposed form of judgment filed by the defendants on February 23, 2007, after a

jury returned a verdict holding defendants liable for 27 of 97 false claims at issue. In the letter brief

accompanying the proposed form of judgment, defendants argued that plaintiff is entitled to no damages

because the jury did not find defendants liable for all 97 of the false claims at issue. Defendants based

this argument solely on statements made by plaintiff’s counsel during argument before the Court

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 363 Filed 03/20/07 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

regarding the special verdict form and the jury instructions. Defendants cited no case law or other legal

authority in support of their proposed form of judgment. 

Defendants now argue that “[t]he Court did not properly consider, in light of prevailing legal

authority, the effect that BART’s knowledge of the ‘false and fraudulent nature of Defendants’ acts’ had

on the falsity of prime contractor pay applications submitted after November 1, 2001.” Br. at 1.

Defendants also argue that the Court’s “Order is contrary to Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(a),” and that plaintiff

“completely failed to produce evidence of even one false claim, and . . . completely failed in its burden

to establish the number of claims actually submitted.” Id. at 3, 5. These legal arguments, and the

authorities defendants now cite in support, were not “presented” to the Court in the underlying brief,

as required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3). As such, a motion for reconsideration is not warranted. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendants’ application for leave to file a motion

for reconsideration. (Docket No. 359)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 20, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 363 Filed 03/20/07 Page 2 of 2