Enwere v. Sauer & Wagner Law Firm

Filing 17

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying 15 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Relief and Petition for Amended Order. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/17/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CATHY ENWERE,

9

Plaintiff,
v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

SAUER & WAGNER LAW FIRM, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

No. C-11-3834 EMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF AND PETITION
FOR AMENDED ORDER
(Docket Nos. 15, 16)

___________________________________/

14
15
16

Previously, this Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis but dismissed her

17

complaint because, based on the allegations therein, Defendants’ conduct was protected by the

18

litigation privilege. The Court, however, gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint.

19

See Docket No. 10 (order). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a paper which the Court construed as a motion

20

to reconsider. The Court denied the motion but reminded Plaintiff that she had an opportunity to file

21

an amended complaint. See Docket No. 12 (order). Plaintiff thereafter filed an amended complaint.

22

See Docket No. 13 (amended complaint). Because the amended complaint failed to address the

23

deficiencies identified by the Court, it dismissed the suit with prejudice. See Docket No. 14 (order).

24

Plaintiff has now filed two motions with this Court. See Docket Nos. 15, 16 (motions).

25

However the Court construes these motions – e.g., as motions to alter or amend the judgment

26

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or as motions for relief from the judgment under

27

Rule 60 – the Court concludes that they fail to present any meritorious argument justifying relief.

28

However Plaintiff frames her claims, e.g., defamation, fraud, perjury, misrepresentation, the fact

1

remains that Defendants allegedly made statements to Judge White as a part of a lawsuit, and

2

therefore the litigation privilege is applicable. To the extent Plaintiff argues that Defendants’

3

statements are hearsay, that is beside the point. The Court is not entertaining any evidence at this

4

juncture; it is simply considering what Plaintiff has alleged. Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff would

5

need to rely on the statements to prove her case, the statements would not be hearsay because they

6

would constitute admissions of a party-opponent. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Finally, while the

7

Court understands Plaintiff’s frustration that it is evaluating her complaint without Defendants even

8

making any argument, it is required to do such because Plaintiff asked for leave to proceed in forma

9

pauperis. As the Court noted in its order of August 30, 2011, “a court must dismiss any case in
which a litigant seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis if the court determines that the action is (1)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks

12

monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” Docket No. 10 (Order at 2)

13

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). This duty is imposed upon the Court under § 1915(e)(2) even in the

14

absence of a motion by defendant; it is triggered when the plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma

15

pauperis. As the Court held, Defendants are immune from relief pursuant to the litigation privilege.

16

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions are hereby DENIED.

17

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 15 and 16.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: October 17, 2011
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

CATHY ENWERE,

9

Plaintiff,
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-11-3834 EMC

SAUER & WAGNER LAW FIRM, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13

___________________________________/

14
15
16

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

17

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

18

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

19

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery

20

receptacle located in the Office of the Clerk.

21

Cathy Enwere
1263 Madera Avenue
Menlo Park, CA 94025

22
23
24

Dated: October 17, 2011

RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ Leni Doyle
Leni Doyle
Deputy Clerk