Glassey et al v. The United Kingdom

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).

Download PDF
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

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?