Powelson v. Havel
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-08245
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Powelson v. Havel, Judge Tigar denied Powelson’s request for permission to seek reconsideration because his tolling argument was new.
Plaintiff Robbie Powelson’s request for permission to seek reconsideration was denied. The opinion does not otherwise alter the earlier dismissal of the claims.
What happened
In Robbie Powelson v. Curtis Havel, Powelson asked for permission to seek reconsideration of an earlier order that dismissed certain claims, including state-law claims as time-barred.
Powelson argued that California Government Code § 945.3 paused the time limits for his state-law damages claims until the related criminal proceedings ended. He said the court had failed to consider this potentially decisive argument.
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied the request. The court explained that reconsideration requires showing that it failed to consider an important fact or legal argument that had already been presented before the earlier order; Powelson’s tolling argument was new and had not been made during the motion-to-dismiss stage.
The detailed version
- Powelson v. Havel · No. 4:24-cv-08245
- Jon Tigar
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
The court considered Plaintiff Robbie Powelson’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration concerning claims dismissed in the court’s September 18, 2025 order. That earlier order had ruled that Powelson’s state-law claims were time-barred.
Powelson’s Argument
Powelson argued that California Government Code § 945.3 tolled, or paused, the time limit for state-law damages claims against peace officers and entities employing peace officers until the related criminal proceedings ended. He contended that the court’s failure to address this statute was a manifest failure to consider a dispositive legal argument.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), which requires a party seeking reconsideration to show that the court failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented before the challenged order was issued. The court concluded that Powelson’s argument under California Government Code § 945.3 was new because he had not raised it in opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Disposition
Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Powelson’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The opinion did not decide the merits of whether § 945.3 tolled Powelson’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.