Thursday, July 1, 2010

District Court’s Denial of Reconsideration Motion Counsels Duty to Promptly Alert Court of New Authority: Keilholtz v. Lennox Hearth Prods

On June 4, 2010, Northern District Judge Claudia Wilken denied a motion requesting reconsideration of the Court’s previous order certifying National and California classes on behalf of single-pane sealed glass front fireplaces owners, previously discussed here. As reasoned by the Court, the defendant’s reconsideration motion, which was based on new Ninth Circuit authority, failed to meet the requirements of Local Rule 7-9 insofar as the opinion was actually issued prior to the Court’s certification order:
Although the parties cannot be faulted for not knowing the precise date the Court will file its orders, they should bring to the Court's attention as soon as possible any facts or law that may affect the motion. Because Defendants waited until after the Court filed its order granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification to notify it of a decision published before the filing of the order, Defendants' motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration does not fall under any of the three categories described above.
See Keilholtz, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63917, 3.

The decision is one of note for class counsel, who in some cases can face multiple motions for reconsideration of a certification order wherein it is claimed everything under the sun constitutes “new authority” impacting the court’s opinion.

No comments:

Post a Comment