Hambolu et al v. Wasserman-Stern Attorneys et al

Filing 18

ORDER Denying Motion to Reconsider Determination to Decline to Accept Filing of the Complaint re 15 Notice of Motion and Motion to Appeal filed by Bamidele Hambolu, Lynn Gavin. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 03/02/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Pre-filing Order)(pjhlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/2/2017: # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service) (kcS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 BAMIDELE HAMBOLU, et al., 8 9 10 Case No. 17-mc-80018-PJH Plaintiffs, 7 v. WASSERMAN-STERN ATTORNEYS, et al., Defendants. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER DETERMINATION TO DECLINE TO ACCEPT FILING OF THE COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 15 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Before the court is pro se plaintiffs Bamidele Hambolu and Lynn Gavin’s “Notice of 14 Motion and Motion to Appeal Acceptance of Complaint.” Dkt.15. On February 16, 2017, 15 the court declined to accept plaintiffs’ complaint for filing because it asserted claims 16 relating to plaintiff Lynn Gavin’s allegedly wrongful eviction from her Parkmerced 17 apartment in 2012. Dkt. 13. As a result, the complaint fell within the scope of Judge 18 Chen’s January 12, 2016 pre-filing order in a prior action by plaintiff Gavin. See Gavin v. 19 City and Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 15-cv-05202-EMC Dkt. 9 at 7. 20 On February 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed the instant motion to appeal the 21 determination not to accept the complaint for filing. Gavin asserts that she “was not 22 notified of any decision for a pre-filing requirement.” Dkt. 15. Had she been made aware 23 of the pre-filing order, she would have “filed an appeal in a timely manner.” Id. 24 It is not clear whether plaintiffs’ motion intends to ask this court to reconsider its 25 determination not to accept the complaint for filing, or seeks to pursue an appeal to the 26 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. To the extent that plaintiffs seek reconsideration of 27 this court’s order, the motion is DENIED. Judge Chen’s pre-filing order was duly served 28 by mail on plaintiff’s address of record. See 3:15-cv-05202-EMC Dkt. 9-1. Although the 1 docket indicates that plaintiff may not have received Judge Chen’s order (it was returned 2 as undeliverable), this was the result of plaintiff’s failure to maintain an updated mailing 3 address as required by the Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 3-11. Nonetheless, the court will 4 attach a copy of Judge Chen’s ruling so that plaintiff is aware of the limitations of the pre- 5 filing order. 6 If plaintiff wishes instead to pursue an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, she will need to 7 pay the docketing fee (or seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis), as she has already 8 been informed by the Clerk. See Dkt. 16. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 2, 2016 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 __________________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 14 15 attachment: Gavin v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 15-cv-05202-EMC Dkt. 9 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2016) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?