Sanderlin v. City of San Jose
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-04824
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Sanderlin v. City of San Jose, Judge Freeman granted plaintiffs leave to seek partial reconsideration of the Bane Act summary-judgment ruling.
The plaintiffs may file a partial motion for reconsideration of the prior summary-judgment ruling on their Bane Act claims; the defendants may oppose it.
What happened
In Sanderlin v. City of San Jose, the plaintiffs asked for permission to file a partial motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier decision granting defendants summary judgment on their California Bane Act claims.
The plaintiffs argued that the court had overlooked a legal theory that a Bane Act claim can be based on reckless disregard for a person’s rights without a separate showing of threats, intimidation, or coercion. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs had not presented that theory when opposing summary judgment and had not acted diligently.
Judge Beth Freeman found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements for reconsideration under the local rule. But the judge relied on the court’s authority to change its own order before final judgment and granted the plaintiffs leave to file the partial reconsideration motion, subject to page limits and a later briefing schedule.
The detailed version
- Sanderlin v. City of San Jose · No. 5:20-cv-04824
- Beth Freeman
- Dec. 17, 2024
Background
Plaintiffs Derrick Sanderlin and the other named plaintiffs filed an administrative motion for leave to file a partial motion for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9. They sought reconsideration of the portion of the court’s March 16, 2023 summary-judgment order concerning their California Bane Act claims. Defendants opposed the request.
Arguments and legal standard
Civil Local Rule 7-9 requires a party to obtain permission before filing a reconsideration motion. The moving party must show reasonable diligence and either newly discovered facts or law, a change in law, or that the court failed to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments previously presented.
Plaintiffs argued that the court had failed to consider their position that reckless disregard of the right at issue is enough to establish a Bane Act violation. They also argued that they acted diligently because they sought leave within two months after the mandate issued following their appeal of the summary-judgment order.
Defendants argued that plaintiffs had made no substantive legal argument about the Bane Act claim in their summary-judgment opposition, apart from referring generally to their Fourth Amendment analysis. Defendants therefore contended that plaintiffs had not previously presented the legal theory they now wanted to brief.
Court’s analysis
The court agreed with defendants that plaintiffs did not identify a material fact the court had failed to consider. The court also found that plaintiffs had not expressly raised the argument that reckless disregard alone was sufficient for a Bane Act violation at the summary-judgment stage. Because the argument had not been presented before the earlier order, the court concluded that it had not failed to consider a previously presented decisive legal argument. The court also found plaintiffs’ diligence questionable and stated that plaintiffs had not established the required elements under Civil Local Rule 7-9.
The court nevertheless explained that a district court has inherent authority to modify its own interlocutory order before judgment. The court concluded that the interest of justice supported allowing plaintiffs to fully brief their theory based on Cornell v. City and County of San Francisco.
Order
The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a partial motion for reconsideration concerning the Bane Act summary-judgment ruling. The order did not decide whether reconsideration should ultimately be granted. Plaintiffs’ brief and defendants’ opposition were each limited to five pages, a two-page reply was allowed, and the briefing schedule was to be set at the upcoming case-management conference.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.