Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-01327
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC, Judge Gilliam denied Feamster’s request to seek reconsideration of an order allowing his lawyer to withdraw.
Scott Feamster’s effort to challenge the earlier order allowing his attorney, Sherri L. Kelly, to withdraw was affected; the court denied permission to file a reconsideration motion.
What happened
In Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC, Scott Feamster asked for permission to seek reconsideration of an earlier order allowing his attorney, Sherri L. Kelly, to withdraw.
The earlier order found an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and concluded that the withdrawal complied with the applicable court and California professional-conduct rules. Feamster argued for reconsideration, but the opinion says he did not present new, important facts or legal arguments.
The court denied Feamster’s motion for permission to file a reconsideration motion. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ruled that Feamster had not shown that the court failed to consider important facts or decisive legal arguments.
The detailed version
- Feamster v. Gaco Western, LLC · No. 4:18-cv-01327
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 11, 2019
Background
On September 3, 2019, Scott Feamster filed a motion for leave, meaning permission, to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier order allowing attorney Sherri L. Kelly to withdraw as his counsel. In the July 19 order, the court found an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and concluded that the withdrawal complied with Civil Local Rule 11-5(a) and the California Rules of Professional Conduct.
Legal standard
Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), a party seeking reconsideration of an interlocutory order—an order issued before the case is finally resolved—must show reasonable diligence and either a material difference in the facts or law, or that the court failed to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments previously presented. The court explained that reconsideration is not a way to repeatedly relitigate prior rulings or replace an appeal.
Ruling
The court found that Feamster had not presented any new and material facts or legal arguments and had not shown that the court failed to consider material facts or decisive legal arguments. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. therefore denied Feamster’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.