Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER re 23 . (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/23/2009: # 1 cs) (ys, COURT STAFF).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. WELLS FARGO BANK, et al., Defendants. / SERGIO IVAN GUTIERREZ, Plaintiff, No. C 08-5586 SI ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On February 9, 2009, the Court issued an order dismissing plaintiff's complaint with leave to amend and denying plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). Since then, plaintiff has filed two additional requests for a TRO. Docket Nos. 20, 23. For the following reasons, plaintiff's motions for a TRO are DENIED. The Court denied plaintiff's initial motion for a TRO because the Court found that plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on the merits of his case. See Order Granting Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss at 10. Thus, the Court construes plaintiff's subsequent requests for a TRO as a motion for reconsideration of its previous ruling. Plaintiff's motion is improper because he failed to seek leave of the Court before filing a motion for reconsideration, but in any event, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration would have been denied. See Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) ("No party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file the motion."). To succeed on a motion for rehearing, plaintiff would have to demonstrate either: (1) a material difference in fact or law from that which was presented to the Court; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change in law; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). Plaintiff has not

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

demonstrated any of these in any of his subsequent filings. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES plaintiff's motions for a TRO.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 20, 2009

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2