ING Bank, fsb v. Fazah

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 9/1/09 ORDERING that to the extent plaintiff's 11 July 21, 2009 letter was intended to serve as an application for reconsideration of the 8 Order of July 20, 2009, it is DENIED. Any further motions in this matter shall be addressed to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to this court's Order of July 20, 2009. (Duong, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ----oo0oo---10 ING BANK, fsb, 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 RAMON P. FAZAH, an individual, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant. _____________________________/ ----oo0oo---On July 20, 2009, the undersigned issued an order referring this case to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) because the sole defendant in this case is appearing pro se. Apparently dissatisfied with the court's July 20, 2009 Order, plaintiff's counsel has, via a letter, requested that the undersigned "hold the Order in abeyance." (Docket No. 10.) In ORDER NO. CIV. 09-1174 WBS EFB

two emails directed to the undersigned's Courtroom Deputy, plaintiff's counsel also suggested that it intends to file a motion before the undersigned and requested that the undersigned hear an anticipated motion to compel. (Docket No. 14.)

In light of counsel's repeated requests, the court

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

finds it necessary to re-state the effect of its Order of July 20, 2009: this matter has been referred to the assigned magistrate judge and any motions, including defendant's pending motion to dismiss, shall be heard before the assigned magistrate judge. As Local Rule 72-302 emphasizes, while the undersigned

could have retained jurisdiction over this matter, "[a]pplications for retention . . . are looked upon with disfavor and granted only in unusual and compelling circumstances." Defendant's argument that the exercise of

jurisdiction by a particular court is unconstitutional is neither an unusual argument by a pro se party nor a compelling reason for the undersigned to retain this action. Therefore, to

the extent plaintiff's July 21, 2009 letter was intended to serve as an application for reconsideration of the Order of July 20, 2009, it is DENIED. Any further motions in this matter

shall be addressed to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to this court's Order of July 20, 2009. DATED: September 1, 2009

2