K. v. Sonoma County

Background

Michelle K. and P.K. asked for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its dismissal of their state-created danger claim against Amy Lafferty. Reconsideration is a request for the court to revisit an earlier ruling.

On September 27, 2024, the court dismissed the claim against Lafferty without leave to amend because the plaintiffs had not contested Lafferty’s argument that their allegations were insufficient. The plaintiffs later included the claim again in a fourth amended complaint. When deciding motions involving that complaint, the court said that including the previously dismissed claim and asking for reconsideration in an opposition brief were procedurally improper.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on June 30, 2025, but the court denied it because they had not first sought permission as required by Civil Local Rule 7-9(a). They then filed the current motion for permission on July 30, 2025.

Reasoning

The court held that the plaintiffs had not shown the reasonable diligence required by Local Rule 7-9. The court explained that a party seeking reconsideration must act promptly and noted that courts in the district have found delays of about a month or longer insufficiently diligent in some circumstances.

Here, the court had dismissed the claim on September 27, 2024, while the plaintiffs’ earliest request related to reconsideration was not filed until June 30, 2025—about nine months later. The plaintiffs argued that they acted promptly after the court addressed the claim in connection with the fourth amended complaint. The court rejected that explanation because it did not account for the earlier dismissal and because repleading the claim did not justify the delay.

Disposition

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not met the requirements of Local Rule 7-9 and denied their motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order did not revisit the merits of the original dismissal.