Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dohanyos v. County of Oakland

April 14, 2008

JEAN L. DOHANYOS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COUNTY OF OAKLAND, THOMAS R. EATON, MARTY ALVIN, WILLIAM BARTLAM, LISA LANGTON, KEVIN OEFFNER, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. George Caram Steeh

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff Jean L. Dohanyos has filed a motion for reconsideration of this court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. Local Rule 7.1(g)(3) sets forth the standard for granting a motion for reconsideration. Rule 7.1(g)(3) provides:

Generally, and without restricting the court's discretion, the court will not grant motions for rehearing or reconsideration that merely present the same issues ruled upon by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication. The movant must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will result in a different disposition of the case. Dohanyos has failed to show a palpable defect by which this Court has been misled.

Dohanyos argues that this Court erred in granting summary judgment for defendants on her violation of due process claim. She argues that the rule of the Personnel Appeal Board (PAB) that a litigant must give seven days notice of counsel's name is per se unconstitutional, or that the rule was unconstitutional as applied to her since seven days before the hearing, she received a voluminous set of exhibits and learned that her ultimate supervisor, Judge James Alexander, would testify against her. She claims that these disclosures convinced her to hire counsel, but when she requested an adjournment to allow her to do so, the PAB denied her request. Although plaintiff appeared with counsel Sam Morgan at the PAB hearing, plaintiff has submitted a new affidavit in support of her motion for reconsideration which states that Morgan was not allowed to speak to the Board, nor to participate in the examination or cross-examination of witnesses. This fact was not made clear to this court when it entered its initial order dismissing her due process claim. However, after duly considering this fact, the Court is not persuaded that a palpable defect exists which would require a different outcome.

In her affidavit, Dohonyos states that she was notified of the March PAB hearing in January of 2006. At that time, she consulted with attorney David Kotzian to determine if she should hire counsel and he advised her ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.