Glassey et al v. The United Kingdom et.al.

Filing 130

ORDER DENYING 129 PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC CASE FILING AND RE EMAIL. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/4/2017. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/4/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dl, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

TODD S. GLASSEY and MICHAEL E.
MCNEIL,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

No. C 16-05606 WHA

ORDER DENYING
PERMISSION FOR
ELECTRONIC CASE
FILING AND RE EMAIL

v.
MICROSEMI, et al.,
Defendants.
/

16
17

This civil action began as a pro se action by plaintiffs Todd Glassey and Michael

18

McNeil against a laundry list of foreign nations and international corporations. The complaint,

19

to the extent comprehensible, accused the defendants of “war crimes,” “financial terrorism,”

20

and other illegal conduct under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, based on their

21

failure to stop various patent filings that allegedly violated plaintiffs’ property rights. In due

22

course, Attorney Dennis Kennelly appeared on behalf of plaintiffs.

23

On March 17, while multiple motions to dismiss remained pending but before any

24

answer had been filed, Attorney Kennelly, acting on behalf of plaintiffs, voluntarily dismissed

25

the entire case (Dkt. No. 128). That ended the litigation.

26

On April 21, Glassey filed a “Motion for Permission for Electronic Case Filing.” The

27

motion caption incorrectly described both Glassey and McNeil as plaintiffs “In Pro Se.” The

28

body of the motion identified Glassey as the sole movant, and his is the sole signature on the

1

motion. The motion appended the following email, dated April 13, from Glassey to the

2

Courtroom Deputy (Dkt. No. 129):

3
4
5

Deputy Logan, our Counsel (Dennis Kennelly) has ‘formally
abandoned’ the case it appears. We have not been able to speak
with him in weeks now.
We understand there was a slew of filings we have not been served
with. We need to get this corrected ASAP if possible.

6
7
8
9

Thank you for your help in this matter.

11
If plaintiffs wish to reopen the case, they must try to do so via a proper motion. The
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

The proposed order from the original ECF access filing *(pre-case
number assignment) is submitted as well. Because of the
timeliness of this request, we are sending it directly to you since
the ECF folks have disabled our ability to file documents in the
case already. We if the Court also wants will mail a copy of this to
the Clerk if necessary too.

12
foregoing email is not a proper motion. Moreover, since Attorney Kennelly remains counsel of
13
record for plaintiffs, any motion from plaintiffs would have to be filed by Attorney Kennelly
14
unless plaintiffs formally substitute themselves in his place. In addition, plaintiff Glassey
15
cannot represent plaintiff McNeil.
16
The motion for permission for electronic case filing is DENIED until plaintiffs formally
17
substitute themselves in place of Attorney Kennelly, who remains their counsel of record in this
18
terminated action.
19
20
IT IS SO ORDERED.
21
22
Dated: May 4, 2017.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2