Lull

Lull v. County of Sacramento

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 4, 20212:16-cv-01093California902 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Autotek Inc. and Christopher Lull, No. 2:16-cv-01093-KJM-CKD Plaintiffs, ORDER Vv. 14 County of Sacramento, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiffs move for reconsideration of the court’s July 20, 2020 order granting summary judgment to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). See generally Prior Order, ECF No. 90. The motion for reconsideration is fully briefed and the court submitted it without a 20 hearing. See Opp’n, ECF No. 100; Reply, ECF No. 106; Minute Order, ECF No. 105. Plaintiffs recently discovered a June 2019 amendment to a relevant SMUD rule. By their 22 reading, the amendment shows the pre-amendment rule should be read differently than the court 23 interpreted it in the prior order. See Mot. at 1-2, ECF No. 94-1.! The amendment expressly

' The amendment and the report and recommendation underlying its adoption are publicly available and are subject to no reasonable dispute. The…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.