Thibodeau v. ADT Security Services

Filing 113

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 112 Motion. The Court will: (1) DENY the motion to vacate settlement conference as moot; (2) SET a limited portion of Plaintiff's request for recusal for hearing on October 26, 2018, at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D . Any responses must be submitted before October 12, 2018. Any reply must be submitted before October 19, 2018. (3) GRANT the motion to reconsider procedures for court service of documents on plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to add Mr. Clayton Del Thibodeau to the service list and to send all future orders, notices, judgments, and docket entries to the email address listed in this order. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 10/1/18. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

CLAYTON DEL THIBODEAU,

Case No: 3:16-cv-02680-GPC-AGS

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION

v.
ADT LLC, d/b/a/ ADT SECURITY
SERVICES, a/k/a/ ADT HOLDINGS
INC.,

[ECF No. 112.]

Defendant.

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

ORDER
On September 13, 2018, pro se Plaintiff Clayton Del Thibodeau “Plaintiff”
filed a motion (1) to vacate settlement conferences, (2) to reconsider procedures for
court service of documents on plaintiff, and (3) to reconsider recusal of Judge
Gonzalo P. Curiel and Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler. (ECF No. 112.)
Plaintiff’s requests are borne, in part, out of events which occurred on
September 12, 2018, when Plaintiff appeared at the Courthouse in anticipation of
attending a previously-scheduled settlement conference. Although the docket
reflects that a copy of the August 30, 2018 order resetting the settlement conference
(from September 12, to September 13) was served upon Plaintiff via U.S. mail,

1
2
3
4
5

Plaintiff states that he never received notice that the settlement conference had been
rescheduled. Because Plaintiff indicated that he would not be able to return to the
Courthouse the next day, Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks entered a Minute
Order vacating the settlement conference scheduled for September 13, 2018. (ECF
No. 110.) The Plaintiff filed this motion shortly thereafter.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

DISCUSSION
First, since there are no pending settlement conferences scheduled in this
matter, Plaintiff’s motion to vacate is denied as moot.
Second, the Court will deny in part and defer in part on ruling on Plaintiff’s
motion to reconsider recusal. Plaintiff’s request—if assessed under the procedural
requisites applicable to a bona fide motion for reconsideration—would be
untimely. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(i)(2), any applications for reconsideration
must be filed with 28 days of the order sought to be reconsidered. The Court
previously denied Plaintiff’s July 13, 2018 request for recusal on July 17, 2018
(ECF No. 103), and his first motion for reconsideration of that order, on July 24,
2018 (ECF No. 107), approximately 58 and 51 days before his present motion for
reconsideration.
As such, the Court will deny the request for reconsideration to the extent that
it is predicated on facts and circumstances previously addressed and rejected in the
Court’s July 17, 2018 order. (ECF No. 103.)
At the same time, the Court recognizes that Plaintiff’s present motion seeks
recusal, at least in part, on the basis of factual circumstances and developments
which occurred after the Court’s July 17, 2018 order. (See ECF no. 112, at 11
(requesting relief based on Plaintiff’s allegations of improper judicial conduct,
“some of which occurred subsequent to Order Dkt. No. 103”.)) The Court is
willing to construe those allegations as constituting a new motion for recusal that
is not subject to the Rule 7.1(i)(2) time bar. Consequently, observing that a final

28
1

1
2
3
4

Pretrial Conference has been scheduled for this matter on October 26, 2018, at 1:30,
the Court will set that limited portion of Plaintiff’s present motion—i.e., that part
of the motion which addresses facts arising after July 17, 2018—for a hearing on
the same day as the Pretrial Conference.

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

Finally, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request to reconsider service. The
Court has previously addressed Plaintiff’s concerns about not receiving service (or
receiving mailed service in an untimely fashion). (See ECF No. 107.) The Court
instructed Plaintiff to review the applicable rules on the Court’s Case
Management/Electronic Case Files system (“CM/ECF”) and to submit a motion
requesting access to CM/ECF if he desired to view items on the docket directly, as
opposed to through the U.S. mail. (Id. at 3.) Although it does not appear that
Plaintiff ever submitted a motion for CM/ECF access, in light of Plaintiff’s pro se
status, the Court is prepared to accommodate Plaintiff’s renewed request for
alternative service. As such, the Court will direct the Clerk to send copies of all
future docket entries to Plaintiff’s email address. A member of the CM/ECF team
has

confirmed

with

Plaintiff

that

his

preferred

email

address

is

[e-mail].
CONCLUSION
Having considered Plaintiff’s motion, the Court will:
(1) DENY the motion to vacate settlement conference as moot;
(2) SET a limited portion of Plaintiff’s request for recusal for hearing on
October 26, 2018, at 1:30 PM in Courtroom 2D. Any responses
must be submitted before October 12, 2018. Any reply must be
submitted before October 19, 2018.
(3) GRANT the motion to reconsider procedures for court service of
documents on plaintiff. The Clerk is directed to add Mr. Clayton
Del Thibodeau to the service list and to send all future orders,

28
2

1
2
3
4

notices, judgments, and docket entries to the email address listed in
this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 1, 2018

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