Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01835/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01835-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JACQUELINE A. WARNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

CMG MORTGAGE INC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01835-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 82

On November 24, 2015, the Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss pro se plaintiff 

Jacqueline Warner’s claims without leave to amend. (Dkt. No. 80.) On December 2, 2015, prior 

to the entry of judgment, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the November 24, 2015 

Order. (Dkt. No. 82.) 

This Court’s Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) requires a party seeking reconsideration of an order to 

“specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion and one of the following”: 

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in 

fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before 

entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. 

The party also must show that in the exercise of reasonable diligence 

the party applying for reconsideration did not know such fact or law 

at the time of the interlocutory order; or 

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law 

occurring after the time of such order; or 

(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. 

Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 

Plaintiff’s failure to file a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is grounds 

for denying the motion. See Phase Forward Inc. v. Adams, No. 05-CV-4232-JF, 2007 WL 

2471486, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2007) (finding a party’s “request for reconsideration is 

Case 4:15-cv-01835-YGR Document 95 Filed 01/06/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

procedurally deficient because [the party] did not first seek leave to file the request as required by 

Local Rule 7-9(a)”). Nevertheless, in light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court construes the 

motion as one for leave. None of the three grounds warranting leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration are satisfied. Plaintiff has identified no new law or facts. To the extent any of the 

authority cited by plaintiff was not included in her numerous prior filings, she has not 

demonstrated reasonable diligence justifying her failure to timely present those authorities. 

Finally, to the extent they are intelligible, the Court previously considered and properly rejected 

plaintiff’s repeated arguments. Plaintiff has also failed to establish any of the grounds for relief 

enumerated in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). As such, the motion is DENIED.

This Order terminates Docket Number 82. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 6, 2016 

______________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-01835-YGR Document 95 Filed 01/06/16 Page 2 of 2