Pauly v. Stanford Health Care, 18-cv-05387-BLF. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20181016801
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RE NONPATIENT STANDING [Re: ECF 2] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff Faiza Pauly filed an administrative motion requesting leave to file a memorandum of points and authorities in support of her Complaint regarding whether she has standing in this case. ECF 2. In the memorandum, Plaintiff also requests that the Court reverse an order granting a motion to dismiss in a
Summary: ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RE NONPATIENT STANDING [Re: ECF 2] BETH LABSON FREEMAN , District Judge . On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff Faiza Pauly filed an administrative motion requesting leave to file a memorandum of points and authorities in support of her Complaint regarding whether she has standing in this case. ECF 2. In the memorandum, Plaintiff also requests that the Court reverse an order granting a motion to dismiss in a ..
More
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RE NONPATIENT STANDING
[Re: ECF 2]
BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.
On August 31, 2018, Plaintiff Faiza Pauly filed an administrative motion requesting leave to file a memorandum of points and authorities in support of her Complaint regarding whether she has standing in this case. ECF 2. In the memorandum, Plaintiff also requests that the Court reverse an order granting a motion to dismiss in a previous action involving the same parties. See Pauly v. Stanford Health Care, No. 10-CV-5582-JF (PSG) (N.D. Cal.), ECF 33. The record in the previous case shows that Plaintiff filed a Rule 60(b) motion which was denied. See id., ECF 94.
This Court has no power to overturn a ruling in a separate law suit involving a prior decision. Moreover, Plaintiff's memorandum is merely an anticipatory opposition to a motion to dismiss by Defendant. Defendant has now filed a motion to dismiss in this case, arguing in part that Plaintiff does not have standing. ECF 8. Plaintiff's opposition is due October 11, 2018. See id. To the extent Plaintiff would like the Court to consider the arguments set forth in her memorandum filed in support of her motion for Administrative Relief, ECF 2, she must include them in her opposition to Defendant's pending motion to dismiss.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
