Keene v. City and County of San Francisco
- Jeffrey White
- 4:22-cv-01587
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge White denied Plaintiffs’ request to reconsider an earlier order granting individual defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying a preliminary injunction.
The ruling directly affects Plaintiffs Selina Keene and Melody Fountila and the individual defendants whose motion to dismiss was addressed in the earlier order.
What happened
In Keene v. City and County of San Francisco, Plaintiffs Selina Keene and Melody Fountila asked the court to rehear an earlier order that granted the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction.
The court treated the request as asking for permission to file a motion for reconsideration. It found that Plaintiffs had not shown a material change in the facts or law, new facts or a change in the law, or that the court had failed to consider important facts or legal arguments.
Judge Jeffrey S. White denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a rehearing based on an alleged legal or factual error.
The detailed version
- Keene v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 4:22-cv-01587
- Jeffrey White
- Oct. 7, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs Selina Keene and Melody Fountila filed a motion for rehearing based on an alleged manifest error of law or fact. The court construed the motion as a request for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider its earlier order granting the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss and denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
Reconsideration standard
Under Northern District of California Local Rule 7-9(b), a party may seek reconsideration only by showing one of three circumstances: a material difference in facts or law from what was previously presented; new material facts or a change in the law after the earlier order; or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously presented. The rule also does not allow a party to use reconsideration to repeat arguments already made.
Ruling
The court found that Plaintiffs had not identified a material difference in the law or facts, new facts or a change in the law, or a failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. The court therefore DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for a rehearing due to manifest error of law or fact.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.