Monroe v. Steinfeld

Filing 24

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 13 Motion for Default Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations as to 17 Report and Recommendations.; denying 19 Motion for Reconsideration ; granting 20 Motion to Continue (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7

OAKLAND DIVISION
8
9

CARL MONROE,

Case No: C 11-2726 SBA

10

Plaintiff,
11

vs.
12

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION; and ORDER
OF REFERENCE

REID LAYNE STEINFELD,
Dkt. 13, 17, 19 and 20

13

Defendant.
14
15

The Court previously referred Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment to the Chief

16

Magistrate Judge or her designee for preparation of a report and recommendation. Dkt. 14.

17

On November 28, 2011, Magistrate Judge Ryu recommended denying the motion for

18

default judgment. Dkt. 17. Plaintiff did not object to the report and recommendation, and

19

the time for doing so has now passed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a);

20

N.D. Civ. L.R. 72-2.

21

On December 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, Dkt. 18, and shortly

22

thereafter, filed a motion for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Ryu’s report and

23

recommendation, Dkt. 19. In addition, Plaintiff has requested that the Court continue the

24

Case Management Conference scheduled for January 12, 2012 pending resolution of his

25

motion for default judgment and motion for reconsideration.

26

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is improper. Before filing such a motion, a

27

party must first seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration in accordance with Civil

28

Local Rule 7-9. Since leave to file a motion for reconsideration was neither sought nor

1

granted, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is subject to denial. Grove v. Wells Fargo

2

Fin. Cal., Inc., 606 F.3d 577, 582 (9th Cir. 2010) (upholding district court’s denial of

3

motion to tax costs which was not in compliance with the court’s local rules). In any event,

4

given Plaintiff’s decision to file an Amended Complaint, the appropriate course of action

5

was for him to have filed a renewed motion for default judgment, not a motion for

6

reconsideration. Accordingly,

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

8

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

9

2.

Magistrate Judge Ryu’s report and recommendation issued on November 28,

10

2011 shall become the Order of this Court. Plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is

11

therefore DENIED.

12

3.

Plaintiff is granted leave to file a renewed motion for default judgment, which

13

is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Ryu for preparation of a report and recommendation.

14

Plaintiff shall file his renewed motion within seven (7) days of the date this Order is filed.

15

4.

Plaintiff’s request to continue the Case Management Conference scheduled

16

for January 12, 2012 is GRANTED. The telephonic Case Management Conference

17

scheduled for January 12, 2012 is CONTINUED to March 29, 2012 at 3:15 p.m. Prior to

18

the date scheduled for the conference, the parties shall meet and confer and prepare a joint

19

Case Management Conference Statement. Plaintiff is responsible for filing joint statement

20

no less than seven (7) days prior to the conference date. The joint statement shall comply

21

with the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California and the

22

Standing Orders of this Court. Plaintiff is responsible for setting up the conference call,

23

and on the specified date and time, shall call [phone] with all parties on the line.

24

5.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

This Order terminates Docket 13, 17, 19 and 20.

Dated: January 10, 2012

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

27
28
-2-