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).

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