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