Namystiuk v. Barney

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING 24 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

DENYS NAMYSTIUK,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 15-03078 WHA

v.
SMITH BARNEY and JAINA SYSTEMS
NETWORK, INC.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

14
Defendants.
/

15
16

After plaintiff Denys Namystiuk failed to appear at the initial case management
17
conference, an order dismissed his case for failure to prosecute and for lack of subject-matter
18
jurisdiction because the complaint was incomprehensible (Dkt. No. 22). Now, plaintiff has filed
19
a “motion to reconsider.”
20
As an initial matter, plaintiff has not sought leave to file a motion for reconsideration, as
21
required by Civil Local Rule 7–9. Even so, plaintiff’s motion is frivolous. Plaintiff states that
22
he will not come to the United States to litigate his case, but wishes to stay in the Ukraine
23
(where he lives) and litigate the case via telephone. This will not work. If plaintiff could not
24
litigate his case in the United States, he should not have filed it here. Plaintiff also disagrees
25
with the previous ruling that the complaint was incomprehensible and thus the Court lacked
26
subject-matter jurisdiction. Specifically, plaintiff states: “The case is dismissed for lack of
27
subject-matter jurisdiction. But is [sic] not true, because it decision [sic] against law” (Dkt. No.
28
24 at 6). The motion goes on to list several statutes and other difficult to discern argument.

1
2

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration does not meet the standard set forth in Civil Local
Rule 7–9 and is thus DENIED.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: November 30, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2