Whitsitt v. Tesla Motors Inc. et al

Filing 89

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT TESLA MOTORS, INC.'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION. Plaintiff, should he wish to proceed with the instant action, is directed to either pay the filing fee to th e Clerk of the Court by June 9, 2017, or file by that date a new IFP application that clarifies the inconsistencies identified in Exhibit A to this order. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 05/26/17. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2017)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10
11

WEST VALLEY STAFFING GROUP, et
al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Case No. 16-cv-00797-MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
TESLA MOTORS, INC.’S MOTION TO
RECONSIDER ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S IN FORMA PAUPERIS
APPLICATION
Re: Dkt. No. 73

On February 17, 2016, plaintiff William J. Whitsitt filed an application to proceed in

14

forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the above-titled action, which application was granted on

15

February 23, 2016, by the judge to whom the matter previously was assigned (“Order

16

Granting IFP”).1 Now before the Court is defendant Tesla Motors, Inc.’s (“Tesla”) motion,

17

filed April 18, 2017, asking the Court to reconsider the Order Granting IFP. Plaintiff has

18

filed opposition, to which Tesla has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed

19

in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for

20

decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for June 2, 2017, and GRANTS the

21

motion as follows.

22

As Tesla correctly observes, the IFP application plaintiff filed in the instant action is

23

identical to the IFP application he filed on December 19, 2016, in a related case, Case

24

No. 16-7234. As Tesla further points out, the Court, on February 8, 2017, denied the IFP

25

application filed in Case No. 16-7234, for the reason that plaintiff’s statements as to his

26

monthly expenses appeared to be inconsistent with his statements that he had no income

27
1

28

The case was reassigned to the undersigned on September 26, 2016.

1

or assets. Tesla argues that, under such circumstances, the Court should reconsider the

2

Order Granting IFP in the instant case. The Court agrees and, having reconsidered the

3

IFP application plaintiff filed February 17, 2016, finds it is insufficient for the reasons

4

stated in the Court’s order, filed February 8, 2017, in the related case, Case No. 16-

5

7234.2

6

In light thereof, plaintiff, should he wish to proceed with the above-titled action, is

7

hereby DIRECTED to either pay the filing fee to the Clerk of the Court by June 9, 2017,

8

or file by that date a new IFP application that clarifies the inconsistencies identified in

9

Exhibit A. If, by June 9, 2017, plaintiff has not paid the filing fee or submitted a sufficient
application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will dismiss plaintiff’s complaint

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

without prejudice.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: May 26, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2

28

Said order is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
2