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.

M. Norman Hammerlord v. Vivien Wang

September 6, 2012

M. NORMAN HAMMERLORD,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
VIVIEN WANG, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 25 INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: David H. Bartick United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MOTION TO RECUSE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE [ECF No. 45]

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's June 28, 2012 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions, and a Motion to Recuse the undersigned Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 45.) Defendant has filed a Response and Opposition. (ECF No. 46.) Plaintiff has not filed a Reply. The Court has reviewed the parties' papers, and for the reasons set forth below, DENIES Plaintiff's motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On March 6, 2012, Magistrate Judge Louisa S Porter scheduled a Settlement Conference in this case for April 25, 2012. (ECF No. 22.) The order setting the conference stated "All counsel, all parties, and any other person(s) whose authority is required to negotiate and enter into settlement shall appear in person at the conference. Failure of required counsel and parties to appear in person will be cause for the imposition of sanctions." (ECF No. 22, ¶ 5.)

On April 25, 2012, Plaintiff Norman Hammerlord and Defendant's attorney, Richard Davis, personally appeared at the conference. However, Defendant Vivien Wang did not appear. The settlement conference went forward as scheduled. Ultimately, the parties were unable to reach a settlement agreement and the Court issued a Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 30.)

On May 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Sanctions due to Defendant's failure to appear at the settlement conference. (ECF No. 32.) On June 28, 2012, the Court issued an Order denying the motion. (ECF No. 42.)

On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration From the Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions and Motion to Recuse Magistrate David H. Bartick. (ECF No. 45.)

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion for Reconsideration

Motions for reconsideration must be made within a reasonable time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c). Under Local Civil Rule 7.1(i)(2), a motion for reconsideration must be filed within twenty-eight (28) days after entry of the order sought to be reconsidered. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) allows reconsideration for the following reasons:

(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;

(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);

(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or ...


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.