1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ROBBIE POWELSON, Case No. 24-cv-08245-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 9 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 CURTIS HAVEL, et al., Re: ECF No. 81 Defendants. 11

12 13 Now before the Court is Plaintiff Robbie Powelson’s motion for leave to file a motion for 14 reconsideration regarding certain claims that the Court dismissed in its September 18, 2025 order. 15 ECF No. 81, 81-1. Powelson argues that the Court’s ruling that his state law claims were time- 16 barred failed to consider California Government Code § 945.3, which provides that state law 17 damages claims against peace officers, and entities employing peace officers, are tolled until the 18 termination of the underlying criminal proceedings. ECF No. 81-1 at 1. Powelson argues that the 19 Court’s omission constituted a manifest failure to consider a dispositive legal argument. ECF No. 20 81 at 1. 21 The Court will deny Powelson’s motion. A party seeking reconsideration of an order must 22 show “a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments 23 which were presented to the Court before” the challenged order was issued. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b) 24 (emphasis added). Powelson’s argument that

tolled his state law claims is a new argument that was not made in opposition to the motion to dismiss. See California v. 25 Connex TCT LLC, No. 24-CV-03457-RS,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2024) 26 (“Finally, Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate material facts or dispositive legal arguments were 27 1 dismiss phase.”). 2 Accordingly, Powelson’s request for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is denied. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: October 21, 2025 5 JON S. TIG 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

13

© 15 16

it

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28