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
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?