Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

B. Benedict Waters v. Hollywood Tow Service

November 15, 2011

B. BENEDICT WATERS
v.
HOLLYWOOD TOW SERVICE, INC., ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Christina A. Snyder, U.S. District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Title

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

RITA SANCHEZ N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers:) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (filed 3/22/2011)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On November 19, 2007, plaintiff, in pro se, filed a complaint against numerous defendants, including Hollywood Tow Service, Inc. ("Hollywood Tow"), Experian Information Solutions, Inc. ("Experian") and Rickenbacker Group, Inc. ("Rickenbacker"). Plaintiff was granted leave to amend multiple times; his third amended complaint ("TAC") was filed on September 15, 2009. Plaintiff's claims, as outlined in his 160-page long TAC, are known to the parties, and summarized in detail in the July 27, 2010 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge ("July 27th Report").

On August 31, 2010, the July 27th Report, which dismissed several of plaintiff's claims, was adopted by this Court. Dkt. No. 361. On September 14, 2010, the default as to Juan Carlos Casas was set aside. Dkt. No. 362. On February 16, 2011, the Court granted Rickenbacker's motion for summary judgment and Experian's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. Nos. 419--20. On February 22, 2011, the Court entered judgment in Rickenbacker's and Experian's favor. Dkt. No. 422. On March 22, 2011, plaintiff filed his motion for reconsideration of the above orders. Dkt. No. 438. After carefully considering the arguments set forth by both parties, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

LEGAL STANDARD

Local Rule 7-18 sets forth the bases upon which this Court may reconsider a previous order. The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.