Van Noland et al v. Pelletier et al
Filing
109
ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 5/12/2010 DENYING 97 Motion as unathorized and cumulative. (Matson, R)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On February 4, 2010, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Plaintiffs' Motion for Recusal. On March 3, ERIC S. PELLETIER and "GRRR! LIMITED," Defendants. ----oo0oo---ORDER MILTON CHARLES VAN NOLAND and JOY GARNER, No. 2:09-cv-02035-MCE-DAD UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration of that Order. This Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration
by Order filed April 6, 2010. Plaintiffs have now filed yet another Motion in this matter, this time denominated it as a "Motion for Correction", asking that the Court "correct" its previous April 6, 2010 Order denying reconsideration. /// 1
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
Plaintiffs' present request is nothing more than a second Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's April 6, 2010 Order. Eastern District Local Rule 303(c), while allowing a party to seek reconsideration of a Magistrate Judge's ruling, does not authorize repeated attempts to do so ("a party seeking reconsideration of a Magistrate Judge's ruling shall file a Motion for Reconsideration"). The instant Motion (Docket No. 97)
is accordingly DENIED1 as both unauthorized and cumulative.2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 12, 2010
_____________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, the Court deemed this matter suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g). Moreover, even were this Court to consider the Motion on its merits, Plaintiffs have still failed to show any newly discovered evidence, clear error, or an intervening change in the controlling law that would justify reconsideration. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656, 665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). 2
2
1
]]>
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?
