Sanderlin

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 DERRICK SANDERLIN, et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-04824-BLF

8 Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

9 v. RECONSIDERATION

10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., [ECF No. 148] 11 Defendants.

12

13 14 On December 9, 2024, Plaintiffs sought leave to file a partial motion for reconsideration of 15 this Court’s Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16 122), specifically as it pertained to Plaintiffs’ Bane Act claims. ECF No. 138. Although Plaintiffs 17 failed to make the showing required by Civil Local Rule 7-9, which governs administrative 18 motions for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the Court sua sponte granted leave to file 19 the partial motion for reconsideration anyway. ECF No. 145. 20 I. LEGAL STANDARD 21 Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “any order or other 22 decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims…