Congdon v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 16-cv-02499-YGR. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180626a01
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. No. 157 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration regarding footnote nine of the Court's previous order denying plaintiffs' motion regarding punitive damages (Dkt. No. 154). (Dkt. No. 157 ("Motion").) Plaintiffs indicate that they "are not seeking reconsideration of the Court's legal ruling that punitive damages
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Re: Dkt. No. 157 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS , District Judge . The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration regarding footnote nine of the Court's previous order denying plaintiffs' motion regarding punitive damages (Dkt. No. 154). (Dkt. No. 157 ("Motion").) Plaintiffs indicate that they "are not seeking reconsideration of the Court's legal ruling that punitive damages ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 157
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.
The Court is in receipt of plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration regarding footnote nine of the Court's previous order denying plaintiffs' motion regarding punitive damages (Dkt. No. 154). (Dkt. No. 157 ("Motion").)
Plaintiffs indicate that they "are not seeking reconsideration of the Court's legal ruling that punitive damages are not available for [p]laintiffs' conversion claim . . . ." (Motion at 2.) Rather, their request pertains to an ancillary footnote in the Court's order. As the request relates to matters not material to the Court's ruling, plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. See Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(3).
With respect to the substance of the request, counsel may address the matter orally at the next calling of the case. For the Court's part, it considers the matter solely as overzealous advocacy with respect to plaintiffs' motion regarding punitive damages, nothing more.
This Order terminates Docket Number 157.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
