Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 770

ORDER re motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 768, and motion for leave to file excess pages, Dkt. No. 767. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/15/2016. (jdlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 3:13-cv-00228-JD
ORDER RE
RECONSIDERATION

v.
RICHARD LOFTUS, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 768, 767

Defendants.

12

Pro se plaintiffs Adil and Roda Hiramanek (“Hiramanek”) have filed a motion for

13

reconsideration of Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial, Dkt.

14

No. 768, and an administrative motion for leave to file excess pages in the reconsideration motion,

15

Dkt. No. 767. The motions are denied.

16

Adil Hiramanek has been declared a vexatious litigant in the United States District Court

17

for the Northern District of California and in the California state court system. Hiramanek v.

18

California Judicial Council, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-4377-RMW, Dkt. No. 34 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31,

19

2016) (“Vexatious Litigant Order”); Dkt. No. 732-4, Exh. A. He has consistently engaged in

20

frivolous motion practice, imposing significant unnecessary costs on many adverse parties and a

21

needless burden on the courts. Vexatious Litigant Order at 17. In this action alone, Hiramanek

22

has filed 91 motions, all of which have been denied. Many of those motions substantially exceed

23

the page limits imposed by the local rules. These facts provide important context to the currently

24

pending motions.

25

Hiramanek’s oversize motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 768, is frivolous and fails to

26

comply with the Local Rules. Hiramanek has violated Civil Local Rule 7-9(a) by filing a motion

27

for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court. The motion could properly be denied

28

on that basis alone. The motion also flouts Local Rule 7-9(c) by repeating several arguments

Hiramanek made in the prior unsuccessful motion for a new trial, including inflammatory

2

accusations against Judge Whyte that lack any evidentiary support whatsoever. See Dkt. No. 712

3

at 24; Dkt. No. 768 at 2. In addition, Hiramanek fails to raise a proper basis for reconsideration.

4

Contrary to Hiramanek’s assertion, there has been no emergence of any material fact since the

5

entry of Judge Whyte’s order denying a new trial. Dkt. No. 768 at 2. Hiramanek says he recently

6

discovered that Judge Whyte, while in private practice in the 1970’s and 1980’s, sometimes

7

represented Santa Clara County. Id. But that fact is wholly immaterial to any of the issues

8

addressed in Judge Whyte’s order denying Hiramanek’s motion for a new trial. Nor has there

9

been a manifest failure to consider any material facts or dispositive legal arguments previously

10

presented to the Court. Nearly all of the “facts” and legal arguments referenced in Hiramanek’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

motion are simply disagreements with rulings made by Judge Whyte in the underlying trial, and

12

are rehashed versions of arguments presented in Hiramanek’s motion for a new trial. See

13

generally Dkt. No. 712; Dkt. No. 768. The remainder, generally, are allegations that Judge

14

Whyte’s order denying a new trial was “fraudulently engineer[ed],” that the same order somehow

15

defamed Hiramanek, and that this entire case has been “rigged” against Mr. Haramanek. Dkt. No.

16

768 at 34. These wholly unsubstantiated arguments are frivolous, and the motion for

17

reconsideration is denied.
Hiramanek’s motion for leave to file an overlong motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 767,

18
19

is also denied. Hiramanek argues that the existence of “about 50 errors” in Judge Whyte’s order

20

denying a new trial -- which, Hiramanek argues, was actually “engineered/authored” by

21

Defendants” -- necessitates the excess pages. Id. at 1. But the Court has reviewed Hiramanek’s

22

motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 68, as well as Judge Whyte’s order denying a new trial, Dkt.

23

No. 758, and concludes that Hiramanek’s motion does not identify any proper bases (much less 50

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

1

of them) for reconsideration of Judge Whyte’s order. Hiramanek’s motion for leave is

2

consequently denied.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 15, 2016

5
6
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3