May v. Amgen, Inc.

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION by Hon. William Alsup [denying 50 Motion for Leave to File].(whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 SAMUEL MAY, Plaintiff, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C 12-01367 WHA v. AMGEN, INC., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Defendant. / 14 15 After exhausting the appellate review process, pro se plaintiff moves for leave to file a 16 motion for reconsideration in this employment action. For the reasons stated herein, plaintiff’s 17 motion is DENIED. 18 19 * * * Pro se plaintiff Samuel May worked for defendant Amgen, Inc., in Colorado from 2002 20 through his resignation in 2006. In April 2007, May sued Amgen in California state court but 21 voluntarily dismissed his lawsuit six months later. May then demanded arbitration in Denver. 22 Following a three-day hearing, during which the parties examined ten witnesses, the 23 arbitrator issued a final award ruling against plaintiff, who was represented by counsel at the 24 time. When Amgen filed a motion in Colorado state court to confirm the arbitration award, 25 May responded with a petition to our court of appeals, who rejected the petition for lack of 26 jurisdiction. The Colorado state court confirmed the arbitration award. 27 28 May came to this federal district court, seeking again to vacate or modify the arbitration award. Our June 2012 order spanned eleven pages and explained the reasons for denying May’s 1 petition. Our court of appeals affirmed. The United States Supreme Court denied May’s petition 2 for certiorari and denied his petition for rehearing. 3 Now, almost three years after entry of our June 2012 order, May moves for leave to file a 4 motion for reconsideration. His motion invoking FRCP 60(b) and Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) is 5 DENIED. 6 First, May’s motion is untimely. FRCP 60(c)(1) states that a motion under FRCP 60(b) 7 must be made within a “reasonable time.” When the motion invokes FRCP 60(b)(1) through (3), 8 it must be brought “no more than a year” after entry of the order. Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) states 9 that a party may move for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of any interlocutory order before entry of judgment. Here, May’s motion comes nearly three years after entry of the 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 June 2012 order. 12 Second, none of the reasons stated in FRCP 60(b) warrants granting May’s motion. 13 To the extent his motion is intelligible, May mainly argues that a “material difference” in law 14 exists. This argument fails because all of the decisions cited by May are decisions that pre-date 15 our June 2012 order, are non-binding or non-precedential decisions, and/or are decisions with no 16 relevance whatsoever to this closed action. 17 18 Accordingly, May’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The file remains CLOSED. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: May 13, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?