Gottschalk v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 28

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Denying #24 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Request. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

KARLA GOTTSCHALK,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-4531 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE REQUEST

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

(Docket No. 24)

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

I.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants in this case filed a motion for a more definite statement and a motion to dismiss

17

on September 28, 2012. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 17, 2012, and an

18

opposition to the motion on October 18, 2012. In her opposition, Plaintiff requested various forms

19

of relief, including an order sealing various records of the San Francisco Human Rights Commission

20

(SFHRC), and declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated various statutes. Plaintiff also

21

raised concerns that Defendants’ counsel may have a conflict of interest in representing both the

22

City and the individual defendants.

23

In light of the amended complaint, Defendants withdrew their motion pursuant to Local Rule

24

7-7(e). Plaintiff now filed an ex parte request that this Court grant the relief that she requested in

25

her opposition to Defendants’ motion. She specifically requests orders from this Court sealing

26

various records of the SFHRC and declaratory judgment that Defendants’ counsel is conflicted out

27

of representing any defendant other than the City and County of San Francisco.

28

1
2
3

As Defendants have withdrawn the September 28 motion for a more definite statement and
motion to dismiss following Plaintiff’s amended complaint, that motion is moot.
To the degree that Plaintiff wishes to have this Court rule on her arguments as to why her

4

claims should not be dismissed, this Court notes that Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the

5

amended complaint on November 5, 2012. Plaintiff may thus renew her arguments in opposition to

6

that motion.

7

To the degree that Plaintiff wishes to seek some order from the Court beyond denial of

8

Defendants’ motion, she cannot do so without filing a properly noticed motion under Civil Local

9

Rule 7-1 et seq. and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
For Plaintiff’s benefit, the Court directs her attention to the Handbook for Pro Se Litigants,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court’s website located at

12

http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Ms. Gottschalk may also contact the Legal Help Center, 450

13

Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415) 782–9000 extension 8657, for

14

free legal advice regarding her claims.

15

II.

16

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s ex parte request is DENIED.

17

This order disposes of Docket No. 24.

CONCLUSION

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: November 15, 2012

22

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2