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As Defendants have withdrawn the September 28 motion for a more definite statement and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
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?