Leskinen v. Halsey et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/18/11: 36 Plaintiff's objection to the court's July 7, 2011 order is overruled. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LAURA LESKINEN, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 No. 2:10-cv-03363 MCE KJN PS v. CAROLYN A. HALSEY, et al., 14 Defendants. ORDER / 15 16 In an order entered July 7, 2011, the court granted defendant Douglas Whitman’s 17 ex parte request for an extension of time in which to respond to plaintiff’s Second Amended 18 Complaint. (Order, July 7, 2011, Dkt. No. 25.) On July 14, 2011, plaintiff filed an “objection” 19 to that order on the grounds that the court granted Whitman’s request before plaintiff could file a 20 written opposition to Whitman’s request. Plaintiff’s objection arguably constitutes an application 21 for reconsideration of court’s July 7, 2011 order. To the extent that plaintiff’s objection is an 22 application for reconsideration by the undersigned of the July 7, 2011 order, it is denied on the 23 grounds that no new or different facts are claimed to exist that would support withdrawing or 24 otherwise altering the orders entered June 29, 2011, and July 8, 2011. See E. Dist. Local 25 Rule 230(j). 26 //// 1 1 Plaintiff’s chief complaint appears to be that she has expended significant sums of 2 money to serve defendants in this case, including Douglas Whitman, after first seeking waivers 3 of service from defendants. To the extent that plaintiff is concerned that defendants in this case, 4 including Douglas Whitman, failed to execute waivers of service without “good cause,” the 5 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a mechanism through which plaintiff may seek to 6 recover the funds she expended in serving defendants who failed to waive service without good 7 cause for so failing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). However, no request for the mandatory 8 reimbursement of service-related expenses is presently before the court. 9 10 11 12 In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s objection to the court’s July 7, 2011 order is overruled. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 18, 2011 13 14 15 _____________________________________ KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?