Namystiuk v. Barney

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING 28 SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
DENYS NAMYSTIUK,
9
Plaintiff,

No. C 15-03078 WHA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
v.
11
12

SMITH BARNEY and JAINA SYSTEMS
NETWORK, INC.,

13

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING SECOND
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
/

14
15

After plaintiff Denys Namystiuk failed to appear at the initial case management

16

conference, an order dismissed his case for failure to prosecute and for lack of subject-matter

17

jurisdiction because the complaint was incomprehensible (Dkt. No. 22). Plaintiff then filed a

18

motion for reconsideration, stating that he would not come to the United States to litigate this

19

case and wished to remain in the Ukraine, and litigate via phone conference. An order denied

20

that motion (Dkt. No. 27).

21

Now plaintiff has filed a second motion titled “motion for leave to file 1th [sic] motion

22

for reconsideration.” This second motion again states that plaintiff will not come to the United

23

States to litigate and raises essentially the same points made in plaintiff’s first motion for

24

reconsideration. Plaintiff’s second motion for reconsideration is largely incomprehensible, adds

25

nothing not addressed in plaintiff’s first motion, and is thus DENIED.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 7, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE