NAACP of San Jose/ Silicon Valley v. City Of San Jose

Background

The plaintiffs sought leave—that is, permission—to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s earlier summary judgment order. They specifically challenged the portion of that order dismissing the claims of the organizational plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that the parties had not had an opportunity to brief organizational standing. They relied on Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1), which concerns a material difference in fact or law from what was presented before the order was entered. They also argued that the defendants had not moved to dismiss the organizational plaintiffs’ claims.

Court’s Reasoning

The court rejected the argument that the defendants had not challenged the organizational plaintiffs’ claims. It explained that the defendants’ motion stated that all defendants were moving under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 for summary judgment on all claims brought by all plaintiffs. Although the defendants’ arguments concerning the organizational plaintiffs appeared in a footnote, the plaintiffs’ opposition brief did not address the organizations’ claims.

The court relied on Ninth Circuit authority stating that arguments not raised in opposition to summary judgment are waived. Because the plaintiffs had not raised the relevant arguments in their opposition, the court did not grant permission to seek reconsideration.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The order addressed the request for permission to seek reconsideration of the earlier summary judgment ruling; it did not itself reconsider that earlier ruling.