Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04487/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04487-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tayler Bayer
Plaintiff
Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

TAYLER BAYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-04487-MEJ 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION (DKT. NO. 86)

ORDER SCHEDULING CMC

Plaintiff Tayler Bayer, a former employee of Defendant Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 

moves the Court for reconsideration of its May 30, 2018 order denying the parties’ cross-motions 

for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 86 (Motion ); Dkt. No. 80 (Order). Defendant filed an 

Opposition (Dkt. No. 91) and Bayer filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 92). Having reviewed the parties’ 

positions and relevant legal authority, the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without 

oral argument and therefore VACATES the August 16, 2018 hearing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. 

L.R. 7-1(b). 

Under Northern District Civil Local Rule 7-9, a party may seek leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration any time before judgment. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). A motion for reconsideration may be 

made on one of three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was 

presented to the Court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, the party applying for 

reconsideration did not know at the time of the order; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a 

change of law; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments presented before entry of judgment. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). “[A] motion for 

reconsideration is an ‘extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and 

conservation of judicial resources.’” Circle Click Media LLC v. Regus Mgmt. Grp. LLC, 2015 

WL 8477293, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015) (quoting Kona Enters. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 

Case 3:13-cv-04487-TSH Document 93 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 3
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

877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000)). “Thus, ‘a motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent 

highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered 

evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’” Id.

(quoting 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Civ. L.R. 

7-9(c) (The moving party may not reargue any written or oral argument previously asserted to the 

Court.).

Bayer seeks reconsideration on two independent grounds. First, Bayer argues he 

“demonstrates based on undisputed facts that NMG unlawfully interfered with his ADA-protected 

rights in violation of Section 503(b) under the legal standard recently adopted by the Court.” Mot. 

at 1. He maintains that “[b]ecause the Court’s new standard rests upon a construction of Section 

503(b) that neither party had proposed, Bayer has not yet had an opportunity to show why the 

facts establish a violation under that standard.” Id. However, Bayer presents no new facts that 

were unavailable to the Court at the time it made its decision, and the Court considered the record 

as a whole in making its ruling. The Court still finds triable issues of fact remain. 

Bayer’s second argument is that the Court used an incorrect legal standard under Section 

503(b). However, Bayer makes the same arguments against the nexus requirement in his motion 

for reconsideration that were made in his supplemental brief in support of his motion for summary 

judgment. “A motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle to re-assert arguments already 

considered and rejected in an earlier order.” Stromberg v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2017 WL 

3727233, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2017) (citing Civ. L.R. 7-9(c) (“No motion for leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in 

support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have 

reconsidered.”)).

Bayer’s motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.

The Court shall conduct a Case Management Conference on August 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.

in Courtroom B, 15th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. This 

conference shall be attended by lead trial counsel. The parties shall file a Joint Case Management 

Statement by August 9, 2018, containing the information in the Standing Order for All Judges in 

Case 3:13-cv-04487-TSH Document 93 Filed 07/30/18 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the Northern District of California, available at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/mejorders. As part of 

their statement, the parties shall indicate whether they wish to attend a further settlement 

conference with Magistrate Judge Westmore or another magistrate judge. The Joint Case 

Management Statement form may be obtained at: http://cand.uscourts.gov/civilforms. If the 

statement is e-filed, no chambers copy is required.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2018

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04487-TSH Document 93 Filed 07/30/18 Page 3 of 3