U.S. v. KWOK CHEUNG CHOW, CR 14-00196 CRB. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20160606641
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jun. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . On June 2, 2016, at 9:52 A.M., the Court entered an order denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify. See Order Denying Motion to Disqualify (dkt. 1453); Motion to Disqualify (dkt. 1397). On the same day, at 10:21 A.M., the Court received what purported to be a new Motion to Disqualify. See [Second] Motion to Disqualify (dkt. 1455). Because the Court has already ruled on this issue, see Order Denying Motion t
Summary: ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CHARLES R. BREYER , District Judge . On June 2, 2016, at 9:52 A.M., the Court entered an order denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify. See Order Denying Motion to Disqualify (dkt. 1453); Motion to Disqualify (dkt. 1397). On the same day, at 10:21 A.M., the Court received what purported to be a new Motion to Disqualify. See [Second] Motion to Disqualify (dkt. 1455). Because the Court has already ruled on this issue, see Order Denying Motion to..
More
ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.
On June 2, 2016, at 9:52 A.M., the Court entered an order denying Defendant's Motion to Disqualify. See Order Denying Motion to Disqualify (dkt. 1453); Motion to Disqualify (dkt. 1397). On the same day, at 10:21 A.M., the Court received what purported to be a new Motion to Disqualify. See [Second] Motion to Disqualify (dkt. 1455). Because the Court has already ruled on this issue, see Order Denying Motion to Disqualify, because briefing on this issue has long been closed, see Order Regarding Motion to Disqualify (dkt. 1398) (setting briefing schedule); Crim. L.R. 47-2 (setting forth normal briefing schedule), and because Defendant never requested an extension of time in which to file additional briefing,1 the Second Motion to Disqualify is DENIED as untimely and moot. Any motion for reconsideration of the Order Denying Motion to Disqualify must comport with the Local Rules of this district.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant asserts in a footnote to the second Motion to Disqualify that defense counsel emailed the Court's deputy and the government on May 2, 2016, asserting that the Motion to Disqualify was "an incomplete draft" and that a "complete motion would be follow." See [Second] Motion to Disqualify at 1 n.1. Such notification fails to comport with any court procedure for withdrawing pending motions, or for seeking extensions of time or additional briefing. Moreover, the Court notes that defense counsel's email stated, "It will take me two to three days to have the corrected motion to disqualify filed," and that an entire month passed from the date of that email to the date of the second motion.
Source: Leagle
