Whitsitt v. Tesla Motors Inc. et al

Filing 62

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO STRIKING OF OPPOSITION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 03/01/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/1/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,
Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION
TO STRIKING OF OPPOSITION

v.

10

WEST VALLEY STAFFING GROUP, et
al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-00797-MMC

Re: Dkt. No. 54

Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court is plaintiff William J. Whitsitt’s (“Whitsitt”) Objection, filed

14

December 15, 2016, by which Whitsitt seeks reconsideration of the Court’s order of

15

November 23, 2016 (“November 23 Order”), wherein the Court struck Whitsitt’s

16

opposition to defendant Tesla Motors, Inc.’s (“Tesla”) motion to dismiss, finding Whitsitt

17

had failed to comply with the Civil Local Rules of this District as to page limits, spacing,

18

and font size. (See Order, filed Nov. 23, 2016, at 1:16-24.)

19

In his Objection, Whitsitt argues that, as a pro se litigant, he is “not held to

20

[p]rofessional pleading or other standards” (see Obj. at 2:1) and asks the Court to

21

“[r]everse” its prior order (see id. at 1:18) and accept the previously stricken opposition.

22

Such argument, however, fails for a number of reasons. First, Whitsitt sets forth no

23

cognizable basis for reconsideration, which, under the Civil Local Rules, is limited to the

24

discovery or emergence of “new material facts,” a “change of law,” or a failure by the

25

Court to consider “material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to

26

the Court before” it ruled. See Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Second, Whitsitt’s reliance on his pro se

27

status is, in any event, unavailing. See, e.g., Green v. Cal. Court Apartments LLC, 321 F.

28

App’x 589, 591 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding “district court did not abuse its discretion by

1

striking [pro se plaintiffs’] motion . . . because it exceeded the page limit established in

2

the local rules”); Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir. 1986) (holding “pro se

3

litigants in the ordinary civil case should not be treated more favorably than parties with

4

attorneys of record”). Lastly, in the interests of justice, the Court, in its November 23

5

Order, afforded Whitsitt an opportunity to file, no later than December 9, 2016, an

6

opposition complying with the Civil Local Rules. Whitsitt’s revised opposition was filed on

7

December 15, 2016, six days after such deadline, and again fails to comply with the Civil

8

Local Rules as to page limits, spacing, and font size.

9
10

Accordingly, Whitsitt’s request for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.
In light thereof, Whitsitt seeks recusal of the undersigned, contending a decision

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

other than a ruling in his favor indicates a failure to “be neutral.” (See Obj. at 3:23-24.)

12

Whitsitt’s disagreement with the Court’s prior order and/or concern that the undersigned

13

has been influenced by allegedly “false statements by [defense] counsel” (see Obj. at

14

3:26-27) are not, as a matter of law, sufficient grounds for recusal. See Liteky v. United

15

States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (holding “judicial rulings” and “opinions formed by the

16

judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current

17

proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality

18

motion,” absent a showing of “deep-seated favoritism or antagonism”); United States v.

19

Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir.1980) (holding recusal motion “is not legally sufficient

20

unless it specifically alleges facts that fairly support the contention that the judge exhibits

21

bias or prejudice directed toward a party that stems from an extrajudicial source”)

22

(emphasis added).

23

Accordingly, Whitsitt’s request for an order of recusal is hereby DENIED.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: March 1, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

27
28
2