Martha Jo Peters v. Employment Development Dept of California et al

Filing 51

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DECLARING HER TO BE A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT by Judge Virginia A. Phillips re: 49 Equitable Motion to Void Ab Initio and to Vacate the Two Orders Declaring the Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Dismissing Her Complaints. The order declaring Peters to be a vexatious litigant remains in place. (mrgo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
)
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT )
DEPT. OF CALIFORNIA; et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants. )
________________________ )

11 MARTHA JO PETERS,

Case Nos.

12

EDCV 13-01628-VAP (OPx)
EDCV 13-01022-R (SPx)

13
14
15
16
17

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
SECOND MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER
DECLARING HER TO BE A
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
[Motion filed on March 16,
2015]

18
19
On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff Martha Jo Peters
20
("Peters") filed an "Equitable Motion to Void Ab Initio
21
and to Vacate the Two Orders Declaring the Plaintiff a
22
Vexatious Litigant and Dismissing Her Complaints"
23

("Motion").1

(Doc. No. 49.)

The Motion is sixty-four

24
pages, with exhibits, expressing Peters's dissatisfaction
25
26

1

Though Peters's Motion bears the case number
"EDCV-13-1022-R(SPx)," because the Motion seeks
27
reconsideration of the order declaring her to be a
28 vexatious litigant, which was entered in the case number
EDCV 13-01628-VAP (OPx), the Motion is properly before
the undersigned.

1 with being declared a vexatious litigant in state and
2 federal court, and describing various alleged
3 conspiracies — perpetrated by Rupert Murdoch, California
4 Attorney General Kamala Harris, and judicial officers of
5 Riverside and San Bernardino Superior Courts — to deprive
6 her of her rights.
7
8

In sum, the Motion again requests the Court

9 reconsider its previous order declaring her to be a
10 vexatious litigant.

Moreover, she also requests the

11 Court vacate an order of the California Superior Court
12 declaring her to be a vexatious litigant.
13
14

The Court lacks the jurisdiction to do the latter and

15 Peters has set forth no basis for it to do the former.
16 The Court denied a similar motion for reconsideration of
17 the vexatious litigant order on February 20, 2014.

(Doc.

18 No. 38.)
19
20
21
22
23
24

A motion for reconsideration must do two things.
First, it must demonstrate some reason why the
court should reconsider its prior decision.
Second, it must set forth facts or law of a
strongly convincing nature to induce the court
to reverse its prior decision. Courts have
distilled three major grounds justifying
reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in
controlling law; (2) the availability of new
evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.

25
26 All Hawaii Tours, Corp. v. Polynesian Cultural Ctr., 116
27 F.R.D. 645, 649 (D. Haw. 1987) rev'd on other grounds,
28
2

1 855 F.2d 860 (9th Cir. 1988); In re Agric. Research &
2 Tech. Grp., Inc., 916 F.2d 528, 542 (9th Cir. 1990)
3 ("Motions for reconsideration may properly be denied
4 where the motion fails to state new law or facts.").
5
6

While Peters's Motion does contain a lengthy

7 assortment of new allegations, none of those facts are
8 germane to the underlying action or her Motion.
9 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion.

The order

10 declaring Peters to be a vexatious litigant remains in
11 place.
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16 Dated:

March 24, 2015
VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3