Preliminarily, the Court notes that the collection of facts surrounding Plaintiff’s 2014 prosecution was not “the critical factor” upon which the Order depends as Plaintiff argues. ECF 49-1 at 2. While the fact that Plaintiff pled nolo contendere to her 2014 prosecution is significant in the analysis of whether her 2014 prosecution can support standing for the injunction she seeks, this was but one factor among many that led to the Court’s conclusion that Plaintiff had not pled facts sufficient to support standing. See generally ECF 47.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff has failed to make the required showing under Local Rule 7–9(b) to obtain leave to file her motion for reconsideration. She has not pointed to a “material difference in fact or law” that exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the Court’s April 4, 2018 Order. She has not pointed to “the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of” the Court’s Order, nor has she shown a “manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court” before the Court’s Order. See ECF 46; ECF 47 at 11-12.
Plaintiff added the 2014 prosecution allegations when she amended her complaint. ECF 39 at ¶¶ 4-7. These allegations then formed the basis for Plaintiff’s argument in opposition to Flippo’s motion to dismiss that she has standing to seek injunctive relief in light of Flippo “repeatedly” violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. ECF 43 at 17, 20. The Court addressed this argument both at the hearing and in its Order, concluding that the 2014 prosecution could not support her argument of “repeated” constitutional violations in light of her nolo contendere plea. ECF 46; ECF 47 at 11-12. There are no new facts or law to be considered, only Plaintiff’s repetitive, and ultimately unpersuasive, argument that the 2014 prosecution supports her standing to seek injunctive relief against Defendant Flippo.
Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the Court’s judicial notice of state court documents similarly fail to present a ground to support leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff opposed taking judicial notice of the state court documents at length in her opposition to Defendant Flippo’s motion to dismiss. ECF at 6-11. The Court took judicial notice of the documents, but did not independently analyze the facts contained in those documents as Plaintiff argues. The Court cited Plaintiff’s FAC for the fact that she pled nolo contendere to the 2014 charges, not the state court documents. See ECF 47 at 11 (citing ECF 39 at ¶¶ 4-7). The Court did not review the facts underlying the charges independently and determine her behavior was unlawful as Plaintiff suggests. Instead, the Court relied on applicable federal case law to support its conclusion that a nolo contendere plea is the functional equivalent of a guilty plea for the purposes of determining whether the outcome of the 2014 prosecution was favorable to Plaintiff, a required element in a malicious prosecution claim. See ECF 47 at 11-12. Plaintiff simply repeats arguments previously rejected by the Court in taking judicial notice; no new facts or law are presented to justify leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
CONCLUSION Plaintiff has failed to present any bases to support granting leave to file her motion for reconsideration. The arguments that she does present are merely an attempt to reargue issues already considered by the Court. As such, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file her motion for reconsideration of the Court’s April 4, 2018 Order is denied.
The ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION document copy is embedded.
Lininger Order Denying Leave to File Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration 4-26-18 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STACY LININGER, Plaintiff, v. RONALD PFLEGER, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 5:17-cv-03385-SVK
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
No comments:
Post a Comment