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.

Baker v. American Express, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

June 11, 2013

ROBERT BAKER, individually and as Executor IN RE ESTATE OF KATE BAKER, Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN EXPRESS, INC., ; AMERICAN EXPRESS FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC.; AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, NC.; AMERICAN EXPRESS TAX AND BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., STANLEY R. COHEN; WILLIAM F. DAVIS, a professional law corporation; MATTEHW FAIRSHTER, a professional law corporation; JOEL R. BENNETT, a professional law corporation; DYEMA GOSSETT, LLP, a professional law corporation; BENNETT & FAIRSHTER, LLP, a professional law corporation; BETTY CHIA, a professional law corporation; POLLET, RICHARDSON & PATEL, LLP, a professional law corporation; MICHAEL D. DONAHUE, a professional law corporation; LUAN PHAN, a professional law corporation; STEVEN C. GLICKMAN, a professional law corporation; GLICKMAN & GLICKMAN, LP; ANDREW J. STERN, DAVID MARH, SIMON LANGER, RICHARD ANTHONY MAHAVIER, a professional law corporation; STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants.

ORDER DENYING THIRD REQUEST FOR AN ATTORNEY AND DENYING REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [Dkt. Nos. 11 & 12]

DEAN D. PREGERSON, District Judge.

Presently before the court is Plaintiff's Third Request for an Attorney and the Estate of Kate Baker's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

The court DENIES the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Only a natural person may qualify for treatment in forma pauperis. Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony , 506 U.S. 194, 197 (1993).

The court interprets Plaintiff's Third Request for an Attorney as a motion for reconsideration of the court's denial of Plaintiff's first two requests. A motion for reconsideration is properly granted on a showing that (1) newly discovered evidence demands a contrary result; (2) the court committed clear error or its decision was manifestly unjust; or (3) there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Dixon v. Wallowa County , 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, Local Rule 7-18 provides that:

A motion for reconsideration of the decision on any motion may be made only on the grounds of (a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.

C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18.

Plaintiff has not met the requirements for a motion for reconsideration, as he has restated and expanded on his previously stated arguments, has not demonstrated any new material facts or change of law, and has not demonstrated any failure of the court to consider material facts. The court therefore DENIES the Third Request for an Attorney. Plaintiffs have 45 days to obtain an attorney for the Estate of Kate Baker and serve the complaint. If the Estate of Kate Baker fails to obtain an attorney in that time, it shall be dismissed as a party to the action. If the complaint is not served, the action shall be dismissed.

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.