Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

LEWIS v. WASHINGTON PARK PARTNERS, LLC, Civ (2013)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20130828879 Visitors: 13
Filed: Aug. 27, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 27, 2013
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge. On March 15, 2013, this court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation that this action be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. On March 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a document, which she asked the court to construe as an objection to the motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment filed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and to the dismissal of her lawsuit. ECF No. 30. In the course of a rambling narrative, plai
More

ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

On March 15, 2013, this court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation that this action be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to prosecute. On March 20, 2013, plaintiff filed a document, which she asked the court to construe as an objection to the motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment filed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") and to the dismissal of her lawsuit. ECF No. 30. In the course of a rambling narrative, plaintiff complains she was not able to file and calendar a motion for summary judgment because defendant Washington Park Partners ("WPP") has eluded service; Farmers' Insurance, acting on behalf of WPP offered her $500 to settle the case; she was fighting an unlawful detainer action, apparently filed by WPP, and was eventually evicted; she has sought seven restraining orders; she wants to amend her complaint to seek four million dollars in damages from WPP and HUD; and she would like to schedule a hearing for a motion for partial summary judgment, to be heard by a district judge.

Plaintiff also suggests that she was not able to respond to HUD's motion because she was hospitalized following an assault on December 1, 2012 and submits a copy of a bill from Kaiser, showing that she was in the emergency room on that date. See ECF No. 30 at 9. To the extent plaintiff offers this as an explanation for her failure to oppose HUD's motion, it falls short, as plaintiff does not suggest that the hospitalization or even the fight that precipitated the visit rendered her unable to work at all for the relevant time period.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's objection, ECF No. 30, is overruled.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer