Antonetti v. Obama et al

Filing 105

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 96 Motion for Certificate of Appeal; denying Plaintiff's 97 Motion for Change of Venue; denying Plaintiff's 98 Motion for Stay. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 8/25/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9
10
11
12
13

JOSEPH ANTONETTI,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BARACK OBAMA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

3:11-cv-00548-LRH-WGC

ORDER

14
15

Before the Court is Joseph Antonetti’s (“Antonetti”) Motion for Certificate of Appeal

16

(Doc. #961), Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. #97), and Motion for Stay (Doc. #98). Pursuant to

17

the Court’s Order (Doc. #101), Defendants filed an Opposition to the aforementioned Motions

18

(Doc. #103). Antonetti filed a Reply (Doc. #104).

19

Here, Antonetti seeks appellate review of the Court’s Orders denying class certification

20

(Doc. # 122), denying appointment of counsel (Doc. # 45), denying appointment of experts

21

(Doc. #45; Doc. #53), denying extension of time to amend complaint (Doc. #45), denying request

22

for assistance in witness presence (Doc. #80), and consolidating the present case under related case

23

number 3:10-cv-00158-LRH-WGC (Doc. #95). The Orders to which Antonetti refers are not final

24
25

1

Refers to the Court’s docket number.

2

Antonetti did not file a motion for class certification.

1

orders, appealable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nor do they involve a controlling question of law

2

such that an immediate appeal would be warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Finally, they

3

do not fall into the limited category of orders which are immediately reviewable under the collateral

4

order exception to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 as they are reviewable on appeal from final judgment. See

5

Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468 (1978) (an otherwise unappealable order is

6

considered “final” and therefore appropriate for immediate review if it (1) conclusively determines

7

the disputed question, (2) resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits, and

8

(3) would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment); see also Cohen v.

9

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). Accordingly, his Motion shall be denied.

10

Additionally, Antonetti’s Motion for Change of Venue and passing request for recusal are

11

without merit. Antonetti fails to cite any law in support thereof or explain his entitlement to either

12

request. His argument that the “system is rigged” simply does not warrant a change of venue

13

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455. Accordingly, his Motion

14

shall be denied.

15
16

Finally, because the Court denied interlocutory appeal, Antonetti’s Motion for Stay Pending
Appeal is denied as moot.

17
18
19
20
21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Antonetti’s Motion for Certificate of Appeal (Doc.
#96) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Antonetti’s Motion for Change of Venue (Doc. #97) is
DENIED.

22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Antonetti’s Motion for Stay (Doc. #98) is DENIED.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED this 25th day of August, 2014.

25
_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2