Christian Wellisch v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency et al

Filing 56

ORDER DENYING 55 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 7/5/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

CHRISTIAN WELLISCH,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 17-cv-00213-BLF

v.
PENNSYLVANIA HIGHER EDUCATION
ASSISTANCE AGENCY, et al.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SECOND MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
[Re: ECF 55]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

On June 30, 2017, Plaintiff Christian Wellisch filed a motion for leave to file a second

14

motion for reconsideration or, alternatively, for a stay and leave to file a motion for certification of

15

interlocutory appeal. Mot., ECF 55. Wellisch seeks reconsideration of the Court’s June 2, 2017

16

order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, and argues that the Court failed to consider

17

dispositive legal arguments and material facts that were presented to the Court. Id. at 1.

18

Like Wellisch’s first motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration, the instant

19

motion appears to be an attempt to relitigate issues raised in Captain Wellisch’s opposition to

20

Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Specifically, Wellisch again raises concerns about Defendant

21

Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (“PHEAA”)’s ability to litigate this matter.

22

See id. at 3–5. In addition, Wellisch laments the fact that remand of his MIL 010 petition did not

23

provide him all the relief he desires—he argues that has been deprived of his right to invoke the

24

special procedural rules provided for in Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code § 409.3. Id. at 2, 4–5.

25

As to the first issue, the Court DENIES Wellisch’s motion for leave as a second motion for

26

reconsideration is not the proper procedural ground upon which to seek review of issues already

27

litigated and decided by the Court. The Court also DENIES Wellisch’s motion as to his

28

arguments regarding the rights delineated under Cal. Mil. & Vet. Code § 409.3. First, Wellisch

1

cites no authority to support this Court taking any action to remedy his alleged deprivations.

2

Second, the Court recognized the potential procedural issues posed by allowing the MIL 010

3

petition to remain in federal court, and therefore severed it from the remainder of Wellisch’s

4

claims, which are properly in federal court. See ECF 40. Having provided the Court with no

5

grounds upon which it could grant Wellisch the relief he seeks, the Court DENIES his motion.

6

The Court also DENIES Wellisch’s motion for leave to file a motion for certification of

7

interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff himself has conceded that he has not provided the Court with any

8

basis to grant this request. See Mot. at 2.

9
10

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dated: July 5, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

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