Purnell v. Rudolph and Sletten Inc.

Filing 146

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 145 Motion to Stay. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GEORGETTE G. PURNELL,
Plaintiff,

8

Re: Dkt. No. 145
RUDOLPH AND SLETTEN INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

v.

9
10

Case No. 18-cv-01402-PJH (KAW)

12
13

On August 19, 2019, the Court granted Defendants’ request for an independent medical

14

exam (“IME”). (Aug. 19, 2019 Ord., Dkt. No. 116.) The Court required that Plaintiff submit to

15

an IME no later than 45 days from the date of the order, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.

16

(Id. at 4.)

17

On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a request for de novo review with the presiding

18

judge. (Dkt. No. 133.) Plaintiff also filed a request for the undersigned to stay the August 19,

19

2019 order until the presiding judge, Ninth Circuit, and United States Supreme Court review the

20

decision. (Dkt. No. 132 at 2.) In support of the request, Plaintiff argues that “the order at issue

21

flies in the face of common sense as plaintiff has consistently presented in multiple pleadings to

22

this court on the matter of defendants’ IME, mainly attending such an examination without court

23

appointed psyche Marcie Bastien . . . .” (Id.)

24

On September 13, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to stay, finding that: “Plaintiff

25

has not demonstrated good cause to grant a stay. Disagreement with the Court’s order is not an

26

adequate reason to stay the order, particularly when Plaintiff offers no legal arguments as to how

27

the Court erred.” (Dkt. No. 134 at 1.) On September 23, 2019, the presiding judge denied

28

Plaintiff’s request for de novo review. (Dkt. No. 140.)

1

On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second request to stay the August 19, 2019 order.

2

(Dkt. No. 145.) The request was identical to the September 9, 2019 request, except that it was

3

dated October 2, 2019. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff also filed another request for de novo review with the

4

presiding judge. (Dkt. No. 144.) Like her request to stay, the request for de novo review is

5

identical to her prior request, other than the date.

6

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to stay. Plaintiff does not demonstrate good cause

7

to grant a stay, particularly when the presiding judge has already denied Plaintiff’s September 9,

8

2019 request for de novo review. Further, if Plaintiff continues to fail to comply with the August

9

19, 2019 order, the Court would consider granting a motion for the recommendation of

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

terminating sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 16, 2019
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2