Morello v. AMCO Insurance Company

Filing 78

ORDER REFERRING PLAINTIFF'S RULE 60(b) MOTION AND ASSOCIATED BRIEFING TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE SPERO. It is evident that Mr. Morello asks the Court to reconsider the prior order, based on purportedly newly discovered evidence. The Court accordingly refers this matter to Magistrate Judge Spero.(jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

GEORGE MORELLO,

Case No. 11-cv-06623-WHO

Plaintiff,
7
v.
8
9

AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER REFERRING PLAINTIFF’S
RULE 60(b) MOTION AND
ASSOCIATED BRIEFING TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE SPERO
Re: Dkt. Nos. 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On September 17, 2013, plaintiff George Morello filed a motion under Federal Rule of

13

Civil Procedure 60(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-9(b), styled Motion for Relief From Magistrate’s

14

September 6, 2013 Nondispositive Order. Dkt. No. 72. Mr. Morello submitted associated briefing

15

at Docket Numbers 73-77.
The September 6, 2013 order was issued by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero, to whom

16
17

all discovery matters have been referred. Dkt. No. 70. Despite styling his motion as one for relief

18

from a magistrate’s order, it is evident that Mr. Morello asks the Court to reconsider the prior

19

order, based on purportedly newly discovered evidence. Dkt. No. (“Because of the newly

20

acquired evidence the Court must reconsider its Order of September 6, 2013, and allow Mr.

21

Morello’s deposition to occur November 26, 2013 at the earliest.”). Indeed, Mr. Morello moves

22

under Rule 60(b) and Local Rule 7-9(b), which govern motions for reconsideration, not motions

23

for relief from a magistrate’s order. The Court accordingly refers this matter to Magistrate Judge

24

Spero.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2013
______________________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge