DeMartini, et al. v. DeMartini, et al.

Filing 408

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 3/1/2019 DENYING 403 Renewed Motion to Stay and to Dismiss. (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DeMartini, et al.,

12
13
14

No.

2:14-cv-02722-JAM-CKD

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
RENEWED MOTION TO STAY AND
DISMISS

DeMartini, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

On January 11, 2019, Defendants and Counterclaimants Michael

18

DeMartini and Renate DeMartini (“Defendants”) filed what they

19

have termed a “Renewed” Motion to Stay and to Dismiss (“Mot.”).

20

ECF No. 403.

21

presented Motion for Reconsideration.

22

admission, the Motion seeks to revive arguments that they have

23

already presented to the Court.

24

Motion for Confirmation of an Automatic Stay, ECF No. 244; Motion

25

for Certificate of Appealability, ECF No. 272; Motion to Dismiss,

26

ECF No. 330.

27

ECF Nos. 254, 283.

28

4/17/18 at 238:5-242:21, ECF No. 343.

Defendants’ Motion is no more than an improperlyBy Defendants’ own

Mot. at 3-4, 9-11.

See also

The Court considered and denied those motions.

See

See also Transcript of Proceedings held on

1

1

Absent “highly unusual circumstances, a Court should only

2

grant a Motion for Reconsideration when it “is presented with

3

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is

4

an intervening change in the controlling law.”

5

Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000).

6

Nothing in Defendants’ Motion suggests that any of the conditions

7

required for granting a Motion for Reconsideration are present.

8
9

Kona Enterprises,

It would serve Defendants well to stay apprised of Rule 11’s
requirements.

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11(b).

In part, the rule

10

states that by filing a motion with the court, the party

11

certifies—under penalty of sanctions—that “[the motion] is not

12

being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass,

13

cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of

14

litigation.”

15

they undermine the authority this Court delegated to referee

16

Chuck Farrar.

17

to Defendants’ Motion.

18

untethered to the law, sanctions will prove unavoidable.

19
20
21
22

Id.

Frivolous filings not only violate Rule 11;

The Court declines to impose sanctions in response
But if future filings are similarly

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES
Defendants’ Motion:
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 1, 2019

23
24
25
26
27
28
2