McComas et al v. Wallace et al

Filing 68

ORDER RE: 45 DENYING LEAVE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 09/09/2010.(rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2010)

McComas et al v. Wallace et al

Doc. 68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

**E-filed 09/09/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

URSULA MCCOMAS, et al., v. Plaintiffs,

No. C 10-2622 RS ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO SEEK RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

EARL L. WALLACE, et al., Defendants, ____________________________________/

The request of plaintiffs Jim and Danielle Earl for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. Although plaintiffs have now offered a response to most of the issues identified by the Court as presenting barriers to the relief they seek, even assuming the criteria for reconsideration may exist with respect to at least some of those points, plaintiffs have shown no basis to reconsider numerous other of the grounds on which relief was denied. Among other things, plaintiffs have not established cause for reexamining the conclusion that an injunction giving them the right to possession of the property should not issue without at least an opportunity for other interested parties, including the present record owner of the property, to be heard. Additionally, even to the extent plaintiffs seek an order only directly affecting the conduct of defendant Stanley Yates, it appears that Yates has not been served with process in

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

this action and was not given legal notice of the underlying motion for a preliminary injunction or the request for reconsideration. This order was originally prepared to be filed on August 26, 2010, but through an administrative error was not e-filed. Plaintiffs have now filed a request seeking to have the hearing on this matter continued. Plaintiffs are mistaken that their request for reconsideration was ever set for hearing on September 30, 2010, or on any other date. Rather, as the order soliciting briefing on the propriety of reconsideration stated, a briefing schedule on the merits (and any hearing date), would be set only if leave to seek reconsideration were granted. In view of this disposition, no further briefing schedule or hearing date will be set, and plaintiffs' request for a continuance is moot.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: 09/09/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2