Rahman v. Mott's LLP, 13-cv-03482-SI. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180116916
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jan. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE; RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. No. 122 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On December 1, 2017, plaintiff Mohammed Rahman filed a motion for reconsideration with this Court. Dkt. No. 122. Plaintiff's motion is based on the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017) (" Davidson "). The parties have informed the Court that a petition for rehearing en banc in Davidson was filed on N
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE; RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. No. 122 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . On December 1, 2017, plaintiff Mohammed Rahman filed a motion for reconsideration with this Court. Dkt. No. 122. Plaintiff's motion is based on the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017) (" Davidson "). The parties have informed the Court that a petition for rehearing en banc in Davidson was filed on No..
More
ORDER VACATING HEARING DATE; RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. No. 122
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
On December 1, 2017, plaintiff Mohammed Rahman filed a motion for reconsideration with this Court. Dkt. No. 122. Plaintiff's motion is based on the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 873 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2017) ("Davidson"). The parties have informed the Court that a petition for rehearing en banc in Davidson was filed on November 3, 2017. The Ninth Circuit has yet to resolve the pending petition.
The Court finds that in the interests of judicial economy, the Court will consider the questions presented by plaintiff's motion for reconsideration after the Ninth Circuit resolves the en banc petition.1 Accordingly, the Court VACATES the January 17, 2018, hearing date and denies plaintiff's motion without prejudice. Dkt. No. 122. The parties are instructed to contact the Court once a decision on the petition has been made. Once the petition has been denied, or has been granted and the case decided, the motion will be rescheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff opposes the request to delay the hearing pending the Ninth Circuit's decision. Dkt. No. 124.
Source: Leagle
