Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation v. Cammack
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:24-cv-01670
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Golden Eagle Insurance v. Cammack, Judge Martinez-Olguin denied plaintiffs’ request to seek reconsideration of an order staying proceedings.
The plaintiffs’ request was denied, and the existing stay of proceedings remained in place. The opinion does not state any additional effect on the defendants.
What happened
In Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation v. Cammack, the plaintiffs asked for permission to file a motion reconsidering the Court’s January 29, 2025 order that stayed the proceedings while a state-court case continued.
The plaintiffs argued that the Court had not considered a 2024 California Court of Appeal decision. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown any of the required grounds for reconsideration, such as new material facts, a change in law, or a failure to consider important arguments.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order did not change the stay of proceedings.
The detailed version
- Golden Eagle Insurance Corporation v. Cammack · No. 3:24-cv-01670
- Martinez-Olguin
- Apr. 7, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s January 29, 2025 order staying the proceedings pending resolution of a state-court case. The plaintiffs argued that the Court had failed to consider the California Court of Appeal’s decision in Gordon v. Continental Cas. Co., 107 Cal. App. 5th 90 (2024).
Legal standard
Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), a party seeking reconsideration must establish one of three grounds: a material difference in fact or law that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before the challenged order; new material facts or a change in law after the order; or the Court’s failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented.
Ruling
The Court concluded that the plaintiffs had not established any of those grounds. The Court therefore denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order did not alter the January 29, 2025 stay of proceedings.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.