Shek v. United States Government National Labor Relations, Region 32 et al
Filing
50
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S "RESPONSE TO JUDGE'S ORDER". Signed by Judge Alsup on April 18, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/18/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
JOHN SHEK,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
No. C 11-00212 WHA
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
“RESPONSE TO JUDGE’S ORDER”
15
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS,
REGION 32, and CALIFORNIA NURSES
ASSOCIATION C.H.E.U.,
16
Defendants.
14
/
17
18
Plaintiff has filed a “response to Judge’s order granting defendant’s [sic] motion to
19
enlarge time for discovery and denying plaintiff’s motion to compel initial disclosures (the ruling
20
before plaintiff received defendants motions [sic]) see Exh A, motion to reconsider, hearing April
21
21, 2011 off calendar” (Dkt. No. 48). It is unclear whether this is a motion to reconsider the order
22
regarding discovery, a motion to reconsider a prior ruling that took a motions hearings off
23
calendar, or simply a response and not a motion to reconsider — given that plaintiff does not
24
request reconsideration except in the title of the submission.
25
Plaintiff’s submission implies that the order granting defendant’s motion regarding
26
discovery did so because plaintiff did not oppose it. Not so. That order rested in no way on that
27
fact. It noted, on the other hand, that plaintiff failed to oppose defendants’ motions to dismiss,
28
which is a different matter. The order stated: “plaintiff failed to oppose defendants’ motions and
1
we are waiting to see whether he will respond to the order to show cause [concerning the motions
2
to dismiss].”
3
In case plaintiff’s submission is in fact a motion to reconsider, pursuant to Civil Local
4
Rule 7-9, no party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court
5
to file the motion. And even if leave were granted, plaintiff’s submission does not present a
6
material difference in fact or law from that which was presented previously, the emergence of
7
new material facts or a change of law since that time, or a manifest failure by the Court to
8
consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. Therefore, even if construed as a motion
9
for leave or a motion for reconsideration, such motion is DENIED.
10
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
Dated: April 18, 2011.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?