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)

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