Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03825/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-03825-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Susan Adams
Defendant
Judy Arnold
Defendant
Board of Supervisors
Defendant
Liz Clark
Defendant
County Supervisors
Defendant
County of Marin
Defendant
Roy Given
Defendant
Steven Kinsey
Defendant
Katie Rice
Defendant
Kathrin Sears
Defendant
Tadeusz Wyrzykowski
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

 Record citations are to documents in the Electronic Case File (“ECF”); pinpoint citations

are to the ECF-generated page numbers at the tops of the documents.

ORDER

No. 3:14-cv-03825 LB

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

San Francisco Division

TADEUSZ WYRZYKOWSKI,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF MARIN, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

No. 3:14-cv-03825-LB

ORDER DENYING THE

PLAINTIFF’S “REQUEST TO

AMEND COMPLAINT”

[Re: ECF No. 67]

Tadeusz Wyrzykowski, who is proceeding pro se, sued ten defendants in his Second Amended

Complaint: (1) the County of Marin; (2) the County of Marin Board of Supervisors; (3) County

Supervisors; (4) former District 1 Supervisor Susan Adams; (5) current District 5 Supervisor Judy

Arnold; (6) current District 4 Supervisor Steven Kinsey; (7) current District 2 Supervisor Katie Rice;

(8) current District 3 Supervisor Kathrin Sears; (9) Roy Given; and (10) Liz Clark. (Second

Amended Complaint, ECF No. 44.1

) The court dismissed the County Supervisors because it is

duplicative of the County of Marin Board of Supervisors; thus, nine defendants remain. (5/12/2015

Order, ECF No. 52 at 2.) In his Second Amended Complaint, Mr. Wyrzykowski brought the

Case 3:14-cv-03825-LB Document 70 Filed 07/16/15 Page 1 of 4
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

ORDER

No. 3:14-cv-03825 LB

2

following eleven claims: (1) violation of his Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process rights

(against all defendants except the County of Marin); (2) violation of his Fourteenth Amendment

right to equal protection under the law (against the County of Marin and the Board of Supervisors);

(3) municipal liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)

and City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (against the County of Marin and the Board

of Supervisors); (4) supervisory liability under Monell (against Ms. Adams, Arnold, Kinsey, Rice,

and Sears and Mr. Given); (5) violation of California’s Bane Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1 (against all

defendants except the County of Marin); (6) “theft of honest services, abuse of power, and color of

law” (against all defendants except the County of Marin); (7) fraud (against all defendants); (8)

violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964,

based on predicate crimes of mail and wire fraud (against all defendants); (9) violation of RICO,

based on predicate crimes of embezzlement and extortion (against all defendants except the County

of Marin); (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress (against all defendants except the County

of Marin); and (11) loss of consortium (against all defendants except the County of Marin). (Second

Amended Complaint, ECF No. 44, ¶¶ 97-230.) 

On June 9, 2015, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr. Wyrzykowski’s

Second Amended Complaint. (6/9/2015 Order, ECF No. 66.) The court dismissed without prejudice

his first, second, third, fourth, and fifth claims and dismissed with prejudice his sixth, seventh,

eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh claims. (Id. at 12-23.) The court also gave him leave to amend his

first, second, third, fourth, and fifth claims in a third amended complaint filed by August 7, 2015.

(Id. at 23.)

On June 23, 2015, Mr. Wyrzykowski filed a document titled “Request to Amend Complaint.”

(Motion, ECF No. 67.) In it, Mr. Wyrzykowski says that he does “not feel that justice has been

served” and asks the court to allow him to amend his sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and

eleventh claims, too. (Id. at 1.) He also says that he wants to name new defendants. (Id. at 2, 3.)

Despite the title of Mr. Wyrzykowski’s document, the court construes it as a motion for leave to file

Case 3:14-cv-03825-LB Document 70 Filed 07/16/15 Page 2 of 4
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

 The court does not construe Mr. Wyrzykowski’s document as a motion for leave to amend

his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, as the court already granted him leave to

file a third amended complaint. The relief he seeks is different: he wants the court to reconsider its

decision to dismiss with prejudice his sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh claims.

ORDER

No. 3:14-cv-03825 LB

3

a motion for reconsideration.2 The defendants filed an opposition, and Mr. Wyrzykowski filed a

reply. (Opposition, ECF No. 68; Reply, ECF No. 69.) For the reasons explained below, the court

denies Mr. Wyrzykowski’s motion.

A district court can “reconsider” non-final, interlocutory order and judgments pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and the court’s “inherent power rooted firmly in the common

law” to “rescind an interlocutory order over which it has jurisdiction.” City of Los Angeles v. Santa

Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 887 (9th Cir. 2001); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (“[A]ny order or

other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and

liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and

may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the

parties’ rights and liabilities.”) Under the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 7-9(a),

which cross-references Rule 54(b), a party must seek permission from the court prior to filing a

motion for reconsideration. N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). In seeking permission from the court, the

moving party must specifically show:

(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. 

N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 

Even if f the court grants a party leave to file a motion for reconsideration, reconsideration is

only appropriate in the “highly unusual circumstances” when (1) the court is presented with newly

discovered evidence, (2) the underlying decision was in clear error or manifestly unjust, or (3) there

Case 3:14-cv-03825-LB Document 70 Filed 07/16/15 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER

No. 3:14-cv-03825 LB

4

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

is an intervening change in controlling law. See School Dis. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v.

ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). “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.” N.D. Cal.

Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). “Unless otherwise ordered by the assigned Judge, no response need be filed and no

hearing will be held concerning a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider.” N.D. Cal. Civ.

L.R. 7-9(d). 

Mr. Wyrzykowski does not meet these requirements. He has not shown that (1) as of June 23,

2015—the date he filed his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration—a material

difference in fact or law existed from that which was presented to the court before it issued its June

9, 2015 order, (2) new material facts or a change of law occurred after June 9, 2015, or (3) there was

a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were

presented to it before June 9, 2015. Mr. Wyrzykowski argues that the court improperly characterized

his allegations as claiming that “the defendants improperly seek taxes from him with respect to a

property he owns,” but this sentence simply served to describe the action at a high level in the

introduction of the court’s order. The court then went on to describe Mr. Wyrzykowski’s in detail

over several pages. The court considered all of Mr. Wyrzykowski’s allegations and all of his

arguments. By this motion, he is making the same arguments that the court already rejected. This

does not allow the court to grant his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. 

Mr. Wyrzykowski’s motion is denied. In accordance with the court’s June 9, 2015 order, he may

file a third amended complaint by August 7, 2015 to amend his first, second, third, fourth, and fifth

claims. He may not name new defendants in it.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 16, 2015 _______________________________

LAUREL BEELER

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-03825-LB Document 70 Filed 07/16/15 Page 4 of 4