Enwere v. Sauer & Wagner Law Firm

Filing 12

ORDER re 11 Letter filed by Cathy Enwere. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/16/11. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CATHY ENWERE, 9 Plaintiff, For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 No. C-11-3834 EMC v. ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S FILING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 SAUER & WAGNER LAW FIRM, (Docket No. 11) 12 Defendant. 13 ___________________________________/ 14 15 16 17 Previously, the Court granted Plaintiff Cathy Enwere’s application to proceed in forma 18 pauperis but dismissed her complaint because, based on the factual allegations therein, Defendants 19 were immune from suit based on the litigation privilege as codified in California Civil Code § 20 47(b)(2). The dismissal was without prejudice, i.e., Ms. Enwere was given the opportunity to file an 21 amended complaint containing new factual allegations to support her claims for defamation and 22 slander. See Docket No. 10 (Order at 2-3). On September 13, 2011, Ms. Enwere filed a response to 23 the Court’s order. The response does not appear to be an amended complaint; rather, it is largely an 24 argument as to why the Court’s prior order was incorrect. The Court thus construes Ms. Enwere’s 25 filing as a motion to reconsider.1 26 27 28   Ordinarily, a party must first seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration. See Civ. L.R 7-9. However, application of Civil Local Rule 7-9 does not make sense in the circumstances here, i.e., where the only substantive filing that Ms. Enwere has made is the filing of her complaint. 1 1 Having reviewed the contents of Ms. Enwere’s filing, the Court DENIES the motion. Ms. 2 Enwere basically takes issue with the Court’s order because she contends that a statement is 3 privileged only if it is true. See Pl.’s Resp. at 5. While the Court is not unsympathetic to Ms. 4 Enwere’s position, that is not the law. The California courts have repeatedly held that a statement 5 that falls within the litigation privilege is privileged even if the statement is purportedly false. See 6 Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal. 4th 1048, 1058 (2006) (stating that “[t]he Court of Appeal here correctly 7 concluded that the communicative act of filing an allegedly false declaration of service of process 8 fell within the litigation privilege”). stands. See Docket No. 10 (order, filed on August 30, 2011). As the Court stated in that order, if no 11 For the Northern District of California The Court’s previous order, which gave Ms. Enwere leave to file an amended complaint, still 10 United States District Court 9 amended complaint is filed within the time frame specified, then the Clerk of the Court shall enter 12 judgment and close the file in this case. 13 This order disposes of Docket No. 11. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 Dated: September 16, 2011 18 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 CATHY ENWERE, 4 Case Number: CV11-03834 EMC Plaintiff, 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE v. 6 SAUER AND WAGNER LAW FIRM et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on September 16, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 16 Cathy Enwere 1263 Madera Avenue Menlo Park, CA 94025 17 Dated: September 16, 2011 15 18 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Betty Lee, Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?