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
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?