Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Minor N.S., Mother C.C., et al v. Safeway

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


June 5, 2012

MINOR N.S., MOTHER C.C., ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
SAFEWAY, INC., RETAIL STORES, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard Seeborg United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs "Minor N.S." and "Mother C.C." seek reconsideration of this Court's denial of 15 their request to proceed in forma pauperis. As grounds for the motion, they point to other, unrelated cases in which they have apparently been granted in forma pauperis status. Civil Local Rule 7-9 permits a party to file a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order founded upon "[t]he 18 emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order." Here, 19 the prior order is not interlocutory in nature, and plaintiffs have failed (1) to request leave to file the 20 motion, and (2) to identify material facts or a change in the law.*fn1 The motion is therefore denied. 21

Additionally, plaintiffs filed a pleading styled as a motion for an injunction, requesting an 22 order restraining retail stores from employing lawyers, purportedly in violation of RICO. Plaintiffs 23 still have not paid the filing fee, as directed by this Court's prior order. That alone disfavors 24 consideration of plaintiff's request. In addition, the "motion" was not properly noticed, and, 25 although apparently brought on an ex parte basis, it does not comply with the Local Rules governing 26 such proceedings. See Civil Local Rule 7-10. Finally, on the merits, plaintiffs have made no effort 27 to satisfy Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), and it is apparent that their 2 request is wholly meritless. It is denied. Plaintiffs are again reminded that, despite their pro se 3 status, they must pay the filing fee and comply with this Court's Civil Local Rules to proceed with 4 this action. 5 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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