1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 3, 2010
8 9 CARL L. JIMENA,
BANK, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ENTITLED 'MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING RE PLAINTIFF'S "OBJECTION TO DOC. 289 PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO DOC. 273 WITH REQUEST TO SUA UBS AG SPONTE MODIFY OR RECONSIDER IT"
By Memorandum Decision and Order filed on October 12, 2010, (Doc. 273), Plaintiff's request for reconsideration by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, (Doc. 270), was denied.
On October 21, 2010, Plaintiff filed "Objections to Doc. 273, With Request to Sua Sponte Modify It or Reconsider It." (Doc. 282). By Memorandum Decision and Order filed on November 3, 2010, Plaintiff's motion, deemed by the Court to be a motion for reconsideration of the Order denying Plaintiff's request for 1 reconsideration of the Order denying Plaintiff's motion to 2 compel, was denied. (Doc. 289). 3 On November 29, 2010, Plaintiff filed "Objection to Doc. 4 289," which pleading the Court deems to be a motion for 5 reconsideration of the denial of Plaintiff's motion for 6 reconsideration of the denial of his Request for Reconsideration 7 by the District Court of the Magistrate Judge's ruling denying 8 Plaintiff's motion to compel. 9 Plaintiff objects to the ruling that UBS AG file a motion to be relieved from deemed admissions, contending that the Court cited no authority allowing the Court to require such a motion and arguing that any such motion by UBS AG is barred by estoppel, waiver and laches. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration on this ground is DENIED. The Court has inherent authority to control cases pending before it and has the discretion to require motions to be filed. Further, UBS AG has filed a motion to be relieved from deemed admissions; Plaintiff's arguments that such a motion should be denied can and should be raised in his opposition to the motion, not as grounds for reconsideration when the merits of such a motion were not at issue.
Plaintiff objects to rulings concerning the timeliness of UBS AG's responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests other than the requests for admission. Reconsideration of these rulings is denied. The issue has been addressed repeatedly; Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's rulings is a matter for appeal. In any event, as the Court has ruled, even if UBS AG's discovery 1 responses were untimely, the Court, in the exercise of its 2 discretion, will not impose any sanctions. 3 Finally, Plaintiff again seeks reconsideration of the 4 Court's ruling that Rule 9(b) has no application to the Answer 5 filed by UBS AG. The Court has twice ruled and will not 6 reconsider again. Plaintiff's disagreement with the Court's 7 rulings is a matter for appeal, not a matter for reconsideration. 8 For the reasons stated: 9 1. Plaintiff's "Objection to Doc. 289" is deemed to be a motion for reconsideration and, as deemed, is DENIED;
2. No further requests for reconsideration or objections to the rulings in connection with Plaintiff's motion to compel, Doc. 258), or the Court's rulings in Docs. 273, 289, or this Memorandum Decision and Order will be entertained by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.