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)

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