Burgess v. Forbes et al

Filing 25

ORDER BY JUDGE JEREMY FOGEL RE 18 PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

**E-filed on 3/5/09**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

REGINALD BURGESS, Plaintiff, v. JASON FORBES, et al.

Case Number C 09-629 JF (HRL) ORDER1 RE PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [re: document no. 18] Defendants.

This Court has denied Plaintiff's applications for temporary restraining order ("TRO") and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that, among other problems with Plaintiff's complaint, he has failed to demonstrate the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court has set a hearing on April 10, 2009 for Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. On March 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's rulings with respect to his applications for TRO and to proceed in forma pauperis. On the same date, Defendants eBay, Inc. and PayPal, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on several grounds, including that this Court lacks subject matter

This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

C a s e No. C 09-629 JF (HRL) O R D E R GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY ETC. ( JF L C 2 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

jurisdiction over the complaint. That motion is set for hearing on April 17, 2009. For reasons of judicial economy, the Court will consider Plaintiff's arguments regarding the propriety of subject matter jurisdiction in the context of Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court therefore will deny Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a separate motion for reconsideration, but directs Plaintiff to present all his arguments on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court will continue the April 10 show cause hearing to April 17, to be heard with Defendants' motion to dismiss. ORDER (1) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is DENIED, and Plaintiff instead is directed to present his arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction in an opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, as discussed above. (2) The show cause hearing set for April 10, 2009 is CONTINUED to April 17, 2009 at 9:00, to be heard with Defendants' motion to dismiss.

DATED: 3/5/09 __________________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Judge

2
C a s e No. C 09-629 JF (HRL) O R D E R GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY ETC. ( JF L C 2 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

This Order was served upon the following persons:

Plaintiff pro se: Reginald P. Burgess 1339 E. Katella Ave, #164 Orange, CA 92867-5204 Andrew Terry Caulfield Holland & Knight LLP 50 California Street , Suite 2800 San Francisco , CA 94111 Email: [e-mail]

3
C a s e No. C 09-629 JF (HRL) O R D E R GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY ETC. ( JF L C 2 )